' This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned lInd Labour Court given on 15th December, 1979 dismissing the appellant workman's grievance application against the dismissal from service.
2. The appellant workman, who was employed in the respondent establishment as a rewinder in the Reeling Section, was dismissed from service, vide the respondent establishment's order, dated 5th November, 1978. He challenged the dismissal orders before the learned Labour Court on the grounds, firstly, that no enquiry was held agilest him and he was merely made to affix his thumb- impressions on certain documents by the Enquiry Officer, secondly that he was not given adequate time to submit his explanation to the second show-cause notice and that lastly the charges of misconduct, on the basis of which the dismissal orders were passed in respect of him, were not only not proved but were false and baseless. The learned Labour Court has repelled all these contentions. It found that a due enquiry was held against the appellant by the respondent- Establishment's Labour Officer, Yousaf Khan, who examined 2 witnesses, in the enquiry, namely Saif Malooq, Jobbber in the Reeling Shift and Shafiq, Shift Incharge, besides recording the statement of the appellant. The thumb-impressions of the appellant appear at the foot of these statements. The mere fact that the appellant did not cross-examine either of the above witnesses cannot suggest an inference that no enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer was examined before the learned Labour Court and he stated on oath that due enquiry was held by him against the appellant. There was thus sufficient material before the Labour Court to hold that a proper domestic enquiry was held against the appellant.
' The next contention of the appellant that he was not given adequate time to reply to the second show-cause notice is also without substance. The second show-cause notice was issued on 23rd October, 1978 and it appears to have been personally served upon the appellant on the same date.
By this notice, he was given 24 hours to submit his explanation to the respondent establishment.
He, however, by his letter dated 26th October, 1978 sought for extension of time and the respondent establishment, by its letter of even date, gave him further time of 48 hours for submitting his explanation. The appellant, however, sought still further time till the 5th November, 1978 for submitting his explanation on the plea that his cousin had died and he was mentally disturbed and he was also pre-occupied. The respondent-Establishment, by its letter dated, 1st November, 1978 extended time for submission of his explanation by further 48 hours, but since he failed to submit his explanation even by 5th November, 1978 orders for his dismissal from service were issued on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report, who found the charges against the appellant fully established.
4. The learned Labour Court also found that the contention of the appellant that the charges against him were false and had not been established was without substance. As already pointed out in the domestic enquiry, evidence was given by Saiful Malook and Shafiq Anwar, both of whom supported the charges against the appellant, that in spite of the fact that repeated instructions were given to the appellant, that before removing the belt of the machine operated by him, it should be supported by a stand, he had failed to carry out these instructions and removed the belt without supporting the machine by a stand, with the result that parts of the machine were bent and hence the machine became unoperational for 2 days. As already stated, the appellant did not cross-examine these witnesses and was unable to controvert their statements. As such, the charges against the appellant appear to have been fully established.
5. I have heard Mr. Rafiq Malik, who appeared for the appellant. He assailed the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and the orders of dismissal of the appellant on 2 grounds. The first ground was that there was no evidence to show that any wilful damage was done to the property of the employer as alleged in the charge-sheet against the appellant. I have already referred to the evidence of Saiful Malook and Shafiq Anwar who have testified that by reason of disregard of repeated instructions issued to the appellant not to remove the belt of machine without supporting it with the stand, the appellant, on 10th October, 1978 deliberately did so, with the result that the machine was damaged and was rendered unoperational for 2 days. Apart from the damage to the machine, therefore, there was loss of production in the respondent establishment by reasons of the machine being idle for 2 days. As such there was wilful damage to the property of the respondent establishment by the action of the appellant.
6. It was next submitted by Mr. Rafiq Malik that the action against the appellant was rendered invalid by reason of the recommendation made by the Enquiry Officer in his report to dismiss the appellant. The learned counsel, however, was unable to refer me to any provision of law either prohibiting the Enquiry Officer from making such recommendation, if he found the charges against the offending workman established, or rendering the proceedings invalid by reason of such recommendations. It is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to ascertain and determine whether the charges against the workman, in respect of whom he is required to hold an enquiry, have been established or not. In his report he has also to indicate whether the circumstances are such that the award of penalty to the workman would be appropriate or not. There can thus be no bar to the Enquiry Officer recommending whether action should or should not 1;10 taken against the workman concerned,
7. As the misconduct of the appellant appears to have been furl established in a domestic enquiry, and further, as there is nothing t) indicate that the enquiry against him was not conducted fairly CO- properly, I would dismiss the appeal in !Inane,