' This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 18th August, 1979, dismissing the appellant workman's grievance petition challenging his dismissal from service and also seeking the balance of his back benefits amounting to Rs. 4,307.
2. The appellant, who was employed as a Fireman in the Boiler Department of the respondent- Establishment, was dismissed from service, after a domestic enquiry, on the charge of remaining unauthorisedly absent from his duties from 16th August, 1975 to 5th December, 1975. The appellant challenged his dismissal orders by way of a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. His petition was allowed by the learned Labour Court, due to the respondent establishment's remaining absent and failing to contest the case, vide order of the learned Labour Court, dated 17th December, 1976.
On appeal, this Tribunal permitted the respondent establishment to hold a fresh enquiry against the appellant by a person other than that by whom the original enquiry was held. The appellant was accordingly reinstated in service and was paid back benefits amounting to Rs. 7,027.
Thereafter, another Enquiry Officer, Mr. Abid Ali Shah, was appointed and he held the enquiry against the appellant on the 25th and 26th of March, 1977. The enquiry was held ex parte as it is the case of the respondent establishment that the appellant failed to attend on the dates of the enquiry though due intimations of the -hearings were given to him. On the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report, according to which the misconduct of the appellant had been fully established, the appellant was ()vice again dislnisSe4 from service vitic an cder, dated 30th April, 1977. The appellant challenged this order also for the learned Labour Court, which dismissed his grievance petition d repelled his contentions that the charge-sheet against him was belated and barred by Limitation, that theappellant was stopped at the gate and not permitted to participate in the enquiry proceedings and that the appellant has failed to establish that he was entitled to back benefits exceeding Rs. 7,027, the amount already paid to him by the respondent establishment.
3. I have heard Mr. Rafique Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant workman, and Mr. Samiullah Khan, who appeared for the respondent establishment. The sole ground on which Mr. Rafique Ahmed assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court was that the appellant was not allowed to participate in the domestic enquiry and was stopped at the gate. In support of his contention, Mr. Rafiq Ahmad relied on the appellant's 2 applications, dated 16th March, 1977 and 25th March, 1977, complaining that he had been stopped at the gate and not been allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings by the Management, and the evidence given by the appellant himself before the learned Labour Court. Both the applications in question are addressed to the Factory Manager of the respondent establishment and are said to have been sent to him by registered post, A/D. However, neither the postal receipts nor the acknowledgment receipts in respect of these 2 applications were produced in evidence. As such, there is no evidence beyond the bare word of the appellant that such applications were sent to the Management. Copy of the application/complaint, dated 16th March, 1977, is said to have been sent by the appellant to the Labour Directorate, but no Officer of that Directorate was examined to establish the fact that such complaint was made. Complaint regarding the appellant not being permitted to enter the factory and being stopped at the gate, is also contained in the application, dated 1st April, 1977, addressed to the Factory Manager of the respondent establishment but the service of this application on the respondent establishment has not been established. These applications thus do not give support to the plea of the appellant that he was gate-stopped or that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings. There remains the evidence of the appellant himself before the Labour Court, According to him, the enquiry was originally fixed for 28th February, 1977 and was later fixed on 5th March, 1977 but on both these dates the enquiry did not proceed as his case before the learned Labour Court also happened to be fixed on those dates. If the Enquiry Officer was careful enough to adjourn the enquiry proceedings on the above dates by reason of the appellant's preoccupation with his case before the Labour Court, it is not understood why be or the Management should stop the appellant from participating in the enquiry. The appellant has also otherwise shown himself to be an unreliable person and on his testimony no value can be set.
According to him the enquiry was also fixed for 16th March, 1977, and accordingly he had come to the gate of the factory where he was met by the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Abid All Shah who informed him that as he was busy, he had adjourned the enquiry to 25th March, 1977. Mr. Abid All Shah, who was examined before this Tribunal, categorically denied this assertion on the part of the appellant and stated that on 16th March, 1977, he had not gone to the gate nor he had met the appellant, who was previously not known to him, but throughout the working hours, he had remained in his office. The Enquiry Officer impressed me as being truthful and reliable and I see no reason to doubt his testimony. According to him, he had satisfied himself that the appellant had not appeared at the gate of the factory either on 25th or 26th of March, 1977, by examining the 2 gatemen, Hussain Badshah and Mukhtar Khan. I have perused their evidence and find that they have categorically stated that at no time the appellant came to the gate on either of the above dates. I am, therefore, satisfied that the plea of the appellant that he was stopped at the gate and was prevented from participating in the domestic enquiry is false and without foundation.
4. The misconduct of the appellant was duly established in the domestic enquiry in which the appellant deliberately avoided to participate, perhaps he was under the impression that having obtained a substantial amount of over Rs, 7,000 as back benefits from the respondent establishment, he could again somehow obtain further benefits from the Management.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the appellant was dismissed from service on valid charge of absenting himself without leave 8 for a period of several months. I would, therefore,