' The appellant who was employed as a carpenter in the respondent-Company was dismissed from service with effect from 12th June, 1979 on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty for more than 10 days despite the fact that his application for leave was rejected. The appellant challenged his dismissal order before the learned Labour Court, which has upheld the same and rejected the appellant's grievance petition. The learned Labour Court has taken the view that admittedly the appellant was absent from his duties with effect from 8th May, 1979 up to 19th May, 1979 and that it was established that he had remained unauthorizedly absent as the leave applied for by him was rejected and due intimation of such rejection was given to the appellant. The learned Labour Court has also held that the domestic enquiry, on the basis of the appellant has been dismissed was fair and impartial and no exception can be taken to it. The appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the aforesaid decision of the learned Labour Court.
2. The first ground on which Mr. Malik Noor, the learned counsel . For the appellant, assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court was that the appellant had orally been granted leave by the Chief Timekeeper Mr. Alvi in the presence of the appellant's own witness Bashir Bux, Foreman. Both these persons were examined in the domestic enquiry. Neither of them, however, supported the plea taken by the learned counsel. There is nothing in the evidence of the Foreman to suggest that he had indicated to the appellant that he had granted leave to the appellant or that he would get him granted the leave required by him. On the contrary, his evidence clearly shows that applications for grant of leave are dealt with and processed by the Time Office in the respondent-Company. The evidence of Mr. Alvi, the Chief Timekeeper is more specific. He admits that the appellant had applied for leave but his request for leave was rejected, firstly, as the appellant had no leave to his credit, and secondly, there was pressure of work. The leave application which admittedly bears the signatures of the appellant has been produced and there is an order of the Administrative Manager thereon, dated 3rd May, 1979 rejecting the request for the grant of leave. The plea thus of the appellant that he had been orally granted leave by his Foreman or Mr. Alvi, the Chief Timekeeper is without foundation.
3. It was next contended by Mr. Malik Noor, the learned counsel, that no intimation of the rejection of his leave application was given to the appellant as required by Standing Order 8. Again, this contention is without substance. The Chief Timekeeper, Mr. Alvi, has stated in the domestic enquiry that the appellant was informed on 5th May, 1979 by the Record keeper, Sabir Ali, that the application for leave had been rejected. Sabir Ali was also examined and he stated that he had informed the appellant in the presence of the Chief Timekeeper that the leave application had been rejected. There is a note on the leave application itself, dated 5th May, 1979, that the applicant was informed that his leave application had been rejected. All this evidence stands unrebutted and falsifies the appellant's plea that he was not informed about the rejection of his leave application.
4. It was next contended by Mr. Malik Noor that the enquiry was defective in that each witness on behalf of the Company was first informed of the charges against the appellant and then asked what he had, to say in respect thereof. I find nothing irregular in such procedure. It appears that the Enquiry Officer was wanting to limit the evidence of the witnesses to the charges against the appellant. As no specific procedure for the examination of witnesses in a domestic enquiry is prescribed, any reasonable procedure which does not cause prejudice to the person being proceeded with in his defence, would be permissible. In the instant case, no prejudice was caused to the appellant by the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer. The witnesses were examined in the presence of the appellant and he was given full opportunity to cross-examine them, which opportunity he fully availed of. I, therefore, find no serious infirmity in the enquiry proceedings which may make them invalid.
5. It was finally contended by Mr. Malik Noor orders of dismissal were not served upon the appellant.
In the first place, no such plea has been raised by the appellant in his grievance petition or the grievance notice served by him upon the respondent-Company. This plea was not even raised before the learned Labour Court. As such, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise this plea before this Tribunal. It may, however, be pointed out that a written dismissal order dated 11th June, 1979 was issued by the respondent-Company. The said order was sent by registered post to the correct address of the appellant. The postal receipt of the registered cover has been produced.
There is thus a presumption that the letter must have reached the appellant in due course of postal, business. It was contended by Mr. Malik Noor that the postal receipt, dated 11th June, 1979 is in respect of the suspension order which was sent by post to the appellant. The suspension order is dated 9th June, 1979 while the postal receipt is dated 11th June, 1979. Further more, there is nothing to indicate in the suspension order that it was being sent by registered post. In fact there was no necessity of sending this letter by registered post. I am, therefore, of the view that the plea of the appellant that the postal receipt, dated 11th June, 1979 is in respect of the suspension order, dated 9th June, 1979 is without foundation.
6. Since it has been established, both in the domestic enquiry as well as in the evidence before the learned Labour Court that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent from his duty with effect from 8th May, 1979 upto 19th May, 1979 and in fact the appellant has himself admitted that he had not even applied for leave either for 8th or 19th of May, 1979 I find no merit in his appeal and dismiss the same.