' This appeal is directed against a decision by the learned IInd Labour Court, given on 8th December, 1979, dismissing the grievance application of the appellant workman.
2. The appellant, who was a permanent workman in the respondent establishment, was granted one month's leave with effect from 23rd May, 1977, in order to visit his native place in Baltistan. As he failed to report for duty on the expiry of his leave, his services were terminated by the respondent establishment with effect from 10th October, 1977. The appellant challenged his dismissal orders before the learned Labour Court which rejected his claim and upheld the orders of dismissal.
3. I have heard Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned Representative for the appellant, and have also carefully gone through the record of the learned Labour Court. Mr. Ashraf Hussain assailed the impugned order of the learned Labour Court on the grounds-(a) that no domestic enquiry was held in respect of the appellant, (b) that neither due notice of the charge-sheet other holding of enquiry was given to the appellant nor were the second show-cause notice and dismissal orders sent to the appellant at his correct address, and (3) that approval of the employer was not obtained to the appellant's dismissal.
4. In order to appreciate the above contentions, it might be mention- fell ill at his native place and accordingly sent one application for extension of leave from his native place and 2 more such applications from Rawalpindi where he had gone for treatment. The appellant further claims that he had furnished medical certificate to respondent-Company in support of his plea that he had fallen ill but his plea was disregarded and he was orally informed that his services had been terminated. The case of the respondent-Company, on the other hand, is that when it was found that the appellant had failed to report for duty on expiry of the leave granted to him, a telegram was sent to him. At his address at his native village registered with the Company, to resume duties, that thereafter a letter, dated 10th June, 1977, was received from the appellant requesting for extension of leave by another month, but he was telegraphically informed that leave was being extended to him by 15 days only, that as the appellant failed to resume duties after the extension of the above leave had expired, he was charge-sheeted and a domestic enquiry was held against him and on the basis of that domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service with effect from 10th October, 1977. It is the case of the respondent establishment that notices of the charge-sheet and the date of holding of domestic enquiry as well as copies of the second show-cause notice and the dismissal orders were not only sent to the appellant by post at the address of the appellant available with the respondent establishment but were also published in the 'Daily Jang' and 'Dawn' newspapers.
5. Now as regards the first contention of Mr. Ashraf Hussain that no domestic enquiry was held against the appellant, I find that this contention is entirely without substance. There is first of all the statement of Mr. Mendonca, the Personnel .Manager of the respondent establishment, who has asserted that due enquiry was held against the appellant and it was on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report that he was charge-sheeted. The next piece of evidence on this point are the various notices published in the 'Daily Dawn' and 'Daily Jang', which are Exhs. R-9 to R-19 on the record of the learned Labour Court repeatedly, asking the appellant and certain other workmen to submit explanations for their prolonged and unauthorized absence, informing them of the appointment of an Enquiry Officer, intimating them the date of the holding of the enquiry, giving them a second show-cause notice and finally informing them of their dismissal. Lastly, on this point, there is the sworn testimony of the Enquiry Officer, Yousuf Ibrahim, the Office Manager in the respondent establishment. He has produced both the record of the domestic enquiry as well as his report. In his report, he has held that the charge of unauthorized absence by the appellant workman bad been established. These circumstances overwhelming establish that a domestic enquiry was held against the appellant as claimed by the respondent establishment.
6. The second contention of Mr. Ashraf Hussain that due notice of the charge-sheet, the holding of the domestic enquiry and the passing of dismissal orders was not given to the appellant workman is equally devoid of substance. It has been asserted by Mr. Mendonca that notices of the charge- sheet, appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the date on which the enquiry was to be conducted as well as copies of the second show-cause notice and the orders of dismissal were sent to the appellant, by registered post, at the address given by him to the respondent Management. Mr. Mendmca has produced the original leave application of the appellant, which bears no address and only mentions that he was going to his village. He has also produced the letter from the appellant, dated 10th June, 1976, seeking extension of his leave. In that application, the appellant has given his address as :- "Ghulam Mehdi, Shegri Hall, Azir Jeng, Chala-pain, Post Office Chunno, District Gangcheh, Baltistan."
There is a third document namely, a Nomination Form of the appellant in respect of his dues under the Company's Profit (Workers Participation) Act, wherein he has given his mother's address as `Teh Skardo, P.
0. Skardo, Village Bain". Even if it be assumed that, the communications which the respondent establishment sent to the appellant at his known and registered addresses were not received by the appellant, then also service upon the appellant of the charge-sheet, notice of appointment of Enquiry Officer, date of holding of enquiry, the second show-cause notice and the dismissal orders can safely be presumed as all of them were published in the Daily 'Dawn' and Daily `Jane. Both these newspapers have wide circulation and it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that at Rawalpindi where he was undergoing treatment, these national newspapers have no circulation or that he did not come to know of the notices in respect of him published therein.
7. The last contention of Mr. Ashraf Hussain that the approval of the employer was not obtained to the dismissal of the appellant also is devoid of substance. Mr. Mendonca, the Personnel Manager of the respondent establishment, has stated that the services of the appellant were terminated after obtaining orders of the General Manager, who is competent to dismiss any worker from service.
This position has not been controverted by the appellant. I am, therefore, satisfied that the services of the appellant were terminated with the approval of the employer.
8. For the reasons stated by me above, I find no substance in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.