' The appellant, who was employed as a Beam-piecer in the Weaving Department of the respondent mills, was dismissed from service with effect from 8th January, 1980 on the charge of being continuously absent from his duties without permission from the said date. The dismissal order was based on the report of the Enquiry Officer. It may be pointed out that the domestic enquiry against the appellant was held ex pane as it appears that the appellant had failed to participate in the same despite receipt of the charge-sheet and due intimation of the dates on which the enquiry was to be held. The appellant was also issued with a second show-cause notice to which he failed to make a reply. The appellant challenged his dismissal orders before the learned find Labour Court, which has rejected his grievance petition by its decision, dated 6th November, 1980 on the ground that the misconduct of the appellant had been duly established in a domestic enquiry of which the appellant had due notice, but the appellant failed to participate in the same due to his own default. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the said decision.
2. The sole ground on which Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned Representative for the appellant, has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court is that though the appellant was anxious to participate in the enquiry proceedings and had actually gone to the respondent-Mills on 17th February, 1980 and 27th February, 1980 the dates on which the enquiry against him was to be held, but he was prevented by the gate-man from entering the Mills and attending the enquiry.
The sole evidence on which Mr. Ali Ahmad relied in support of this plea is the statement made in cross-examination by the Cashier of the respondent-Mills, Ghulam Ali, that he is not aware if the appellant had come to the Mills on 17th February, 1980 and 27th February, 1980 and that he was not allowed to enter into the factory to attend the enquiry. As Cashier in the respondent-Mills, witness Ghulam Ali was neither directly concerned with the enquiry proceedings against the appellant nor with his presence in the respondent-Mills either for the purpose of the enquiry proceedings or otherwise. His leave of knowledge thus does not keep the appellant. As rightly pointed out by the learned Labour Court, the plea of being stopped at the Factory's gate appears to be an afterthought and is devoid of substance. No such plea was raised either in the grievance notice or in the grievances petition of the appellant. It was for the first time, in his cross-examination, that the appellant made this allegation. Moreover, as already pointed out, there is no evidence to substantiate this allegation. The appellant was forced to admit that be did not complain to any body when he was stopped at the gate and prevented from attending the enquiry. The last that the appellant should have done, if he was so stopped, was to complain to the Management against the action taken by the gateman' in stopping him. The plea thus appears to be not only afterthought butj also devoid of any substance.
3. The misconduct of the appellant in continuously remaining absent from his duties with effect from 8th January, 1980 was duly established in a domestic enquiry of which sufficient and due notice was given to the appellant. I would accordingly concur in the decision taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal. Appeal distnissed,