' The appellant, who was employed in the Machine Shop of the respondent-Company, was dismissed from service on 15-1-1979, after a domestic enquiry in which, according to the report of the Enquiry Officer, the charge of habitually being absented from his duties, without leave was established against the appellant. The appellant challenged dismissal from service by way of a grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Before the learned Labour Court, wherein he alleged that he had been victimized due to his Trade Union activities. He claimed that he was a nominee of the C. B. A., was the Vice-President of the Works Council between 1969 to 1973 and was also General Secretary of the Workers' Union and in the performance of his duties in connection with the above posts, he had incurred the displeasure of the respondent-Company. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's application on the ground that the appellant was repeatedly absent from his duties without leave in spite of warnings administered to him. The learned Labour Court has pointed out that it is an admitted position that the appellant had remained absent from duties for 170 days in the year 1978 and 232 days in the year 1977. The appellant has now come up in appeal against the decision of the learned Labour Court.
2. It was contended by Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the appellant, that the proceedings against the appellant, were initiated due to his absence from duties from 14-11-1978, but in respect of his absence, the appellant had established that he was unable to attend to his duties on account of an injury sustained by him on the leg. Mr. Ali Amjad sought to rely on 2 pieces of evidence in support of his contention that the appellant was prevented by reason of his injuries from attending to his duties. The first piece of evidence is the Medical Certificate said to have been submitted by the appellant when he reported for duty on 21-11-1978. However, neither that Medical Certificate is on the record of the learned Labour Court nor it was produced before the Enquiry Officer. As such, it cannot be said that any such Certificate was in fact produced by the appellant.
Even if such certificate was submitted by him, since it has not been produced, it cannot be said that the appellant was so injured that he could not attend to his duties for as along as 7 days. The second piece of evidence relied upon by Mr. All Amjad was the fact that the appellant had shown his injuries to the Enquiry Officer. Again, there is no evidence as to the nature of the injuries, if any, upon the appellant. As such, it cannot be said that the appellant was prevented by reason of his injuries from performance of his duties or reporting for duties.
3. It was next submitted by Mr. Ali Amjad that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was guilty of misconduct was based primarily on 3 periods of absence from duties by the appellant. The first being from 18th to 20th August, 1979, the second from 19th to 21st October, 1978 and the third being from 14th to 21st November, 1978. Mr. Ali Amjad conceded that there were other periods of absence from duties by the appellant, the first in May, 1978 and the second in December, 1978, but he contended that neither of these 2 absences should be taken into consideration, for in respect of the absence in May, 1978, the appellant was issued a warning which should be considered as punishment that Management deemed adequate in the circumstances of the case while the absence in December, was not referred to in the charge-sheet served upon the appellant and was in fact subsequent to the charge-sheet. While the absence of the appellant in December may not strictly be taken into consideration except for the purposes of establishing habitual conduct on the part of the appellant, the warning served upon the appellant in respect of his absence in May, 1978, cannot be considered as imposition of punishment by the Management upon the appellant but has to be construed as indicating the intention of the Management to take severe action against the appellant if he persisted in his habit of remaining absent from his duties.
The warning issued to the appellant in May, 1978, was not the sole one administered upon the appellant by the Management. Another warning was given to him by the Management by its letter, dated 24-10-1978, regarding his habit of remaining absent from duty without leave. In spite of these warnings, the appellant persisted in the habit Of remaining absent from duty without leave. The indifference of the appellant towards his duties can be gauged -from the fact that admittedly he remained absent from his duties for 170 days in 1978 and for as many as 210 days in the year 1977.
These absences display a total disregard for discipline and performance of duties by the appellant.
The appellant may have been an active trade unionist and a Senior Officer in the organization of Trade Union but this did not entitle him to repeatedly and habitually remain absent in the manner in which he has done. His contention, therefore, that he has been victimized on account of Trade Union activities is entirely without substance.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.