This appeal by a workman is directed against the order, dated 29th April, 1979, by the learned First Labour Court, dismissing the appellant's application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re-instatement in service with back .Benefits.
2. The case of the appellant is that he was a permanent workman of the respondent, being employed as a weaver on a monthly salary of Rs. 400 and that his services were suddenly terminated by the respondent orally on 17th February 1977, without assigning any reasons. The respondent resisted the appellant's claim for re-instatement in service and grant of back benefits on the grounds, firstly, that the grievance notice and the application by the appellant under section 25-A, I. R. O., were premature in that they were both made before the appellant's services were dispensed with, and secondly, that the appellant was guilty of misconduct, in that he had remained absent without leave, and in consequence thereof he was dismissed from service after a proper and fair domestic enquiry.
3. I have heard Mr. Ch. Maarif for the appellant and Mr. Masood Mirza for the respondent. The only ground on which Mr. Maarif assailed the impugned order was that there was no tangible proof that a domestic enquiry was at all held by the respondent, and even if such enquiry was held no action on its basis can be taken against the appellant as it was held in violation of rules of natural austice and suffers from other serious irregularities. He submitted that there is no proof whatsoever that the charge-sheet was served upon the appellant and that admittedly the appellant did not participate in the enquiry and in fact no fair or proper opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself.
4. I find no substance whatsoever in the above contentions of Mr. Maarif. On the point of the holding of the enquiry there are affidavits of Wtushtaq Ali, the Manager of the respondent and Hassan Zahoor, who conducted the enquiry. Manager Mushtaq Ali has stated in his affidavit that as the appellant failed to submit a satisfactory explanation for his absence exceeding ten days, in spite of being called upon to do so, he was served with show-cause notice, dated 18th February, 1977, when the appellant visited the establishment of the respondent on 19th February 1977. 1 have inspected the said show-cause notice, which I find bears the signature of the appellant., I have compared the signature at the foot of this document with the admitted signatures of the appellant and find that they tally. I am, therefore, satisfied that the appellant was served with the show-cause notice, dated 18th February, 1977.- In view of this position, the mere .Fact that the copy of the charge-sheet which was sent by post to the appellant was returned undelivered is of no consequence. Evidently the post copy was despatched before the appellant turned up at the establishment of the respondent on 19th February, 1977, and personally received a copy of the charge-sheet.
5. Manager Mushtaq Ali has further stated in his evidence that a domestic enquiry was held against the appellant by Mr. Hassan Zahoor on 18th March, 1977, in which enquiry, however, the appellant did not participate in spite of due notice. Mushtaq Ali is fully corroborated by the Enquiry Officer, Hassan Zahoor. Neither of them have been cross--examined by the appellant as to the holding of the enquiry. I am, therefore, satisfied that the enquiry was held as averred by these two witnesses. The appellant was given due notice of the holding of this enquiry. The notice was sent to the appellant by registered post A. D., in a cover bearing his correct address. The letter was not returned undelivered. It is, therefore, deemed, on the principles of section 27 of the General Clauses Act to have been received by the' appellant. The appellant, being fully aware of the fact that a domestic enquiry was being held against him, is himself to blame solely for not participating therein. The domestic enquiry appears to have been fairly held and there is nothing to indicate that it suffers from any infirmity. In the domestic enquiry it was established that the appellant was absent from his work for a period exceeding ten days, without leave and without any valid reason.
I also agree with the contention of Mr. Mirza that the application for reinstatement and back- benefits filed by the appellant was not maintainable. The second show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 29th March, 1977 and his dismissal orders were issued on 6th April, 1977. However, the application under section 25 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was filed by the appellant much earlier on 15th March, 1977, when even the charge-sheet against him had not been issued. As such the application was clearly premature. Admittedly neither any grievance notice was served upon the respondent nor any fresh application under section 25-A of the Indus-- trial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was filed by the appellant after he was dismissed from service. As such the application filed by the appellant for re-instatement, before he was dismissed from service or even charge sheeted, is not maintainable.
7. For both the above reasons, I hold that the appeal fails. It accordingly stands dismissed.