DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.
2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent. According to the allegations made by him, he worked up to 20th July, 1975 and when on 29th July, 1975 he went to the mills, he was stopped at the gate and was not permitted to enter by the Management. He, therefore, served a grievance notice dated 6th August, 1975.
3. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the appellant remained absent without any leave w. e. f. 29th July, 1975. A grievance notice dated 6th August, 1975 was received on 9th August, 1975 The allega--tion made by the appellant was refuted. A charge-sheet dated 13th August, 1975 was served upon the appellant calling upon him to show cause why he remained absent without leave for more than 10 days. The appellant did not make any reply. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and intimation to that effect was sent to the appellant but he failed to attend the inquiry and there--fore, ex parte inquiry was held. He was found guilty and second show cause notice was given. To this also he did not send any reply. Conse--quently, he was dismissed from service by a letter dated 16th September, 1975. It was also pleaded that the grievance notice dated 6th August, 1975 was premature as till then no cause of action had accrued to the appellant.
4. Evidence was tendered by the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the grievance notice dated 6th August, 1975 sent by the appellant was premature and he was never stopped at the gate and in view of the inquiry which was held the dismissal of the appellant was justified. So he dismissed the application.
Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am unable to maintain the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. The learned Presiding Officer had rejected the evidence of the appellant an his witness Muhammad Rafique, but I am unable to agree with him. In m view they had given true evidence in respect of the allegation that the appellants was not permitted to enter the premises of the mill on 29th July, 1975. This is supported by the fact that he had sent the grievance notice on 6th August, 1975. To stop at the gate in order to prevent the entry amounts to the termination of the service. In case this action was not taken by the Management, there was no reason for the appellant to have sent the grievance notice. Considering the various dates it is clear that the notice was sent on the ninth day. So if it is presumed that he had remained absent without leave then at the most he would not have been entitled to wages for those days bat he could not be dismissed from service as the period was less than 10 days. In the view of the matter I am unable to support the finding of the Labour Court that the notice given by the appellant was premature or no cause of action bad arisen.
6. So far the charge-sheet and inquiry are concerned, I am clear in my mind, that the charge-sheet was to forestall a defence against the notice which was served by the appellant. The Management had illegally terminated the service of the appellant and in order to justify it the charge-sheet was issued. It is pertinent to note that this charge-sheet was issued after the receipt of the notice from the appellant. The inquiry was, therefore, a mere farce and non---participation of the appellant in the inquiry was fully justified and is not open to any objection.
7. In result I allow OW appeal and set aside the impugned order with the result that the appellant should be re-instated with full back benefits.