' The appellant, who was employed as a Mines Sardar in H. M. Iqbal Coal Mines, was dismissed from employment, vide order, dated 11th August, 1977, on the ground that he had remained absent from his duties, without leave, for a period exceeding 10 days with effect from 2nd December, 1976. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal from service by way of a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court wherein he claimed that he had been granted 2 months leave, through the General Secretary of the Collective Bargaining Agent, as he had received a telegram from his native place that his mother is seriously ill and hence the charge on which he had been dismissed from service was baseless. It was also claimed by the appellant that he was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report, not given a chance of personal hearing and that the enquiry was mala fide, arbitrary and partial. The respondent resisted the appellant's grievance petition on the grounds that the appellant had been sanctioned 20 days leave on account of the illness of his mother through the intervention of Khamosh Gul, the General Secretary of the Collective Bargaining Agent, but as he failed to return for duty on the expiry of his leave, a domestic enquiry was held against him in which his misconduct for remaining absent for a period exceeding 10 days without leave was fully established. The allegations of the appellant that the enquiry was mala fide, arbitrary and partial was denied and it was further asserted that the copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was furnished to the appellant along with the second show-cause notice. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had been granted leave for only 20 days and that the appellant had failed to establish that in fact he had been granted leave for 2 months.
It also came to the conclusion that the appellant was given intimation that leave for 20 days only had been sanctioned. The learned Labour Court repelled the contention of the appellant that the enquiry was illegal, mala fide or arbitrary and has taken the view that it was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law and full opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself. The learned Labour Court further took the view that the examination of Choudhry Zaka Ashraf, the Managing Director of H.M. Iqbal Coal Mincs, in the enquiry proceedings could not vitiate the same as his evidence became necessary on account of the claim of the appellant that he had been sanctioned 2 months leave by the Managing Director. On these findings, the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant who has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed, the learned Representative of the appellant and Mr. M. A. Latif, the learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Abdul Majeed assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on 3 grounds. His first ground of attack on the validity of the enquiry proceedings against the appellant was that no second show-cause notice was served upon the appellant. It may be pointed out that this is not even the case of the appellant himself. Even in his grievance petition he has not alleged that the second show-cause notice was not served on him but claimed that copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was not supplied to him nor appended with the second show-cause notice. The appellant himself, in his evidence, has produced the second show-cause notice which bears his signatures in token of having received the same. I have compared the signature on second show-cause notice with the appellant's signature on his grievance petition and authority letter issued by him in favour of Khamosh Gul, the General Secretary of the C. B. A., and I find that they substantially tally. It may further be mentioned that the appellant had himself submitted an explanation to the Management in respect of the show-cause notice and in that explanation, which is dated 8th August, 1977, he has admitted the receipt of the second show-cause notice. No doubt, in that explanation, he has claimed that copy of the Enquiry Officer's report/findings was not appended to the second show-cause notice, but as would be presently shown this allegation of the appellant is unfounded.
3. It was next contended by Mr. Abdul Majeed that no persona hearing was given to the appellant. It may be pointed out that giving o such a bearing is not a requirement of law. But, it would be appropriate in cases where a workman desires a personal hearing, that personal hearing should be given to him either by the Proprietor of the establishment or a responsible person authorized by him in this behalf. In the instant case, it has been candidly conceded by Mr. Abdul Majeed that there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the appellant has specifically asked for personal hearing.
4. ' It was next contended by Mr. Majeed that copy of the Enquiry Officer's report, which was taken into consideration by the Management in passing the dismissal orders against the appellant, was not furnished to the appellant and hence he has been prejudiced in his defence and in fact no opportunity was given to him of knowing what the Enquiry Officer had found against him. However, it has been specifically asserted in the second show-cause notice which the appellant admitted to have received, that a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was appended therewith. No doubt, as already pointed out, the appellant in his explanation to the second show-cause notice raised the objection that the Enquiry Officer's report was not appended with the second show cause notice, but the respondent's manager, Din Muhammad, has specifically stated in his evidence that copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was appended to the second show-cause notice. He was not cross examined on this point and hence his evidence in this behalf stands unrebutted. Moreover, the appellant, in his evidence before the learned Labour Court has not said a word to the effect that copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was not furnished to him. It appears that he was satisfied by the reply statement of the respondent pointing out that copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was appended to the second show cause notice, which he had received. I am accordingly of the view that the contention of the appellant that he had not been furnished with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report is without force.
5. It is finally submitted by Mr. Majeed that it has not been established that the appellant had remained absent without leave for 2 months and that there was clearly evidence to show that the appellant was granted leave on the intervention of the General Secretary of the C. B. A., to see his ailing mother at his native place. It is common ground that the appellant was granted leave, at the intervention of Khamosh Gul, on account of the fact that the appellant's mother was seriously ill at his native place. The question, however, that falls to be considered is what was the extent of leave that was granted to him. The appellant claims that he had applied for 2 months leave and this gave was granted to him. In support of this contention, reliance was pla8ed on the evidence of Khamosh Gul in the enquiry proceedings. Khamosh Gul, while supporting the appellant on the point that he had got leave sanctioned for the appellant from Mr. Ashraf, the Managing Director of the Collieries, has not said a word as to the extent of leave which the respondent had sanctioned for the appellant. The Managing Director, Muhammad Ashraf, was examined in the enquiry proceedings and he categorically denied that he had sanctioned 2 months leave to the appellant.
He stated that only 20 days leave was sanctioned to the appellant. His testimony gains strong support from the intention sent to the appellant at his home address that only 20 days leave had been sanctioned. Further support to his testimony is provided by the evidence of Manager, Din Muhammad, who has stated that under the direction of the Managing Director, Muhammad Ashraf, he had informed the appellant that his leave for 20 days had been sanctioned and he should get orders from the office and then proceed on leave but he left without taking the orders. The combined effect of these circumstances is that it is established that the appellant was granted leave for only 20 days but he substantially over-stayed his leave or at any rate it has not been established that he was granted leave for 2 months, as claimed by him.
6. The result of the above discussion is that I hold that the appellant has been guilty of misconduct in remaining absent without leave for a period exceeding 10 days. I would accordingly concur in the decision of the Court and dismiss the appeal.