' This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Vth Labour Court, given on 2nd April 1980, dismissing the appellant workman's grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O.
2. The respondent Establishment is a taken over Industry and the appellant was employed therein as a Helper. On 27th August 1978, he was charge-sheeted for wilfully neglecting the work assigned to him, deliberately refusing to comply with the orders and instructions of his superiors, behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner during the working hours within the factory's premises, misbehaving with, using abusive language towards and quarrelling with his superiors, Fitters Ghulam Hussain and Wazir Ahmad, and throwing a chair at helper Muhammad Raza in a "rage".
The Enquiry Officer found the above charges established against the appellant and accordingly he was dismissed from service with effect from 14th October, 1978. The appellant challenged his dismissal orders by way of a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court on the twin grounds that the person who had issued the charge-sheet to the appellant was not his employer and consequently was not entitled to issue the charge-sheet and that further the appellant was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the domestic enquiry in as much as he was not furnished copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded during the domestic enquiry though repeated applications were made by the appellant requesting for such copies. The learned Labour Court repelled both these contentions and held that the misconduct of the appellant had been duly proved and the domestic enquiry was fair and impartial. It further held that the Personnel Officer, who had issued the charge-sheet, was duly authorized by the Managing Director to do so and in fact had been named as the Factory Manager under the Factories Act, 1934.
3. Mr. Mughees Ahmad, the learned representative of the appellant, has given up before this Tribunal the objection that the charge. Sheet served upon the appellant was issued by an incompetent authority but has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on the following grounds
(I) that the appellant was not granted proper opportunity to defend himself in that copies of the statements of witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to him, though he made repeated applications for the same ; and
(ii) that there is no evidence in support of the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the appellant had assaulted fitters Wazir Ahmed and Ghulam Hussain.
4. Now as regards his first contention, Mr. Mughees Ahmad candidly conceded that there is no provision of law requiring the Enquiry Officer or the management to furnish to the workman against whom a domestic enquiry is being held copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the enquiry. Mr. Mughees Ahmed, however, submitted that since supply of such copies would enable the workmen to properly defend himself, the supply of such copies upon demand should be considered to be essential and required by rules of Natural Justice. The learned representative, however, was unable to cite any authority in support of his contention. No doubt, even in a domestic enquiry, a workman, who is charged with committing misconduct, has to be given proper opportunity to defend himself, but failure to supply him with copies of the statements recorded during the enquiry even before the stage of second show cause notice cannot be considered to be denying the workman a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself, specially in cases where the statements of witnesses are recorded in the presence of the workman. In the instant case, not only the statements of witnesses were recorded in the presence of the appellant, who has signed each statement, but further repeated offers were made to him to read the statements which offers he declined for no valid reason. These offers, as appear from the record of the enquiry proceedings, were made on 10th September, 1978, 12th September, 1978, and again on 13th September, 197, and he was also repeatedly assured that though he could not be given copies of the statements of the witnesses at that stage, the copies would be supplied to him on the conclusion of the proceedings. In refusing to accept the offers made by the Enquiry Officer to read the statements of the witnesses if he so desired, and on insisting that copies of statements of witnesses be furnished to him before his statement was recorded, the appellant clearly appears to have acted in an unreasonable manner. I any case, it is not a requirement of Natural Justice that a workman who is being proceeded against for misconduct should be furnished copies of statements when he is present during the recording of the statements and has beard the same and an opportunity to read them has been-given to him.
5. It was submitted by Mr. Ghulam Hassan, the learned representative for the respondent company, that the attitude of the appellant all-along was unreasonable and obstructive and he did not want the enquiry to be completed. In support of his submission, Mr. Ghulam Hassan referred to the application, dated 3rd September, 1978, made by the appellant to the Enquiry Officer, intimating that the enquiry should be postponed, firstly because he wanted to raise legal objections thereto, and secondly, he was unwell. Mr. Ghulam Hassan also referred to the enquiry proceedings and pointed out that when the enquiry officer asked the appellant to cross examine the witnesses, he stated that he would explain their evidence in his own statement. Mr. Ghulam Hassan finally submitted that though repeated opportunities from 9th September, 1978 to 26th September, 1978, were given to the appellant to appear before the Enquiry Officer and to make his statement, the appellant purposely refused to do so and hence exparte proceedings had to be taken against him on 26th September, 1978. Mr. Mughees Ahmed, on the other hand, contended that the Enquiry Officer had wrongly declared the appellant as absconder and taken ex parte proceedings against him on 26th September, 1978, on which date admittedly the appellant had submitted an application to the Enquiry Officer for supply of copies of statements of witnesses. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the appellant had made 2 previous applications to the Enquiry Officer for copies, one, dated 13th September, 1978, and the other, dated 14th September, 1978. Reply to these applications.Was made by the Enquiry Officer, vide his letter, dated 16th September, 1978, informing him that copies of statement would be supplied to the appellant at the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings and not earlier. In view of this categorical reply the making by the appellant of a third application for copies of the statements of witnesses on 26th September, 1978, can only be construed as yet one more attempt to delay the domestic enquiry proceedings. The justification for taking ex parte proceedings against the appellant was that he failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and participate in the enquiry proceedings despite repeated opportunities being given to him to do so and in spite of a notice, dated 25th September, 1978, being pasted on the Notice Board of the factory requiring the appellant without fail to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 25th September, 1978: The fact that such a notice was pasted on the Notice Board of the factory has been admitted by. The appellant himself in his application, dated 26th September, 1978. The mere fact that the appellant made an application for copies on 26th September, 1978, does not establish that he was present on that date before the Enquiry Officer or that he participated in the enquiry proceedings. The application could have been sent through another worker. I am, therefore, satisfied that not only the domestic enquiry proceedings against the appellant were fair and impartial but further the Enquiry Officer was forced to hold part of the proceedings ex parte because of the failure on the part of the appellant to participate in the enquiry proceedings in spite of repeated opportunities given to him in this behalf.
6. I also find little substance in the second contention of Mr. Mughees Ahmad that the evidence on record does not substantiate the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the appellant had assaulted fitters Ghulam Hassan and Wazir Ahmad. In fact no such charge was levelled against the appellant. As already pointed out, the charges against him were habitual neglect of work, disobedience of the orders of his superiors, riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours and throwing of a chair upon helper Muhammad Raza. These charges have been duly established against the appellant through the testimony of Abdul Ghani, Wazir Ahmed and Abdul Ghaffar. The fact that fitter Ghulam Hussain was not examined is not material as the evidence of the above 3 witnesses sufficiently established the charges against the appellant. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.