DECISION ' The appellant was employed as a permanent workman in the respondent company and claims to have been the President of a newly-formed Trade Union namely, Mehnatkash Union. He was issued two charge-sheets, one dated 8th January, 1980, charging him with habitual absence from duties without leave, and the other, dated 28th January, 1980, charging him with indiscipline and disobedience of the reasonable orders of his superior. Two separate domestic enquiries are said to have been held against the appellant but it appears that the appellant did not participate in either domestic enquiry. The appellant was ultimately dismissed from service vide letter of the respondent company, dated 17th March, 1980, after a second show-cause notice had been served upon him.
2. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned Vth Labour Court on the grounds, firstly, that he had been illegally gate-stopped with effect from 11th February, 1980, and thereafter had not been allowed to enter the factory for performance of his duties, secondly, that the subsequent orders of his dismissal, dated 9th March, 1980, were illegal and invalid, and that the dismissal orders in respect of him were further invalid, as were further issued in contravenion of the provisions of section 8-A,. I.R.O., while the application for registration of the Mehnatkash Union was pending with the Registrar of Trade Unions. The learned Labour Court by its exhaustive order, dated 5th September, 1981, repelled the various contentions on the basis of which the appellant had challenged the orders of his dismissal from service, and has held that the appellant was dismissed from services, after his misconduct was duly established in two separate fair and impartial enquiries in which the appellant had deliberately avoided to participate. It further held that there is no evidence to show that due notice as required by section 8-A, I. R.
0., was given to the respondent company of the office-bearers of the Mehnatkash Union. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
3. I have heard Mr. Kohistani for the appellant and Mr. Malik Sher, who appeared for the respondent company, The sole point on which Mr. Kohistani assailed the impugned order of the learned Labour Court was that the services of the appellant had been terminated during the pendency of an application for registration of the Mehnatkash Union of which the appellant was the President. Mr. Kohistani, however, was unable to refer to any evidence on the record to indicate when the application for the registration of the Mehnatkash Union was made to the Registrar and when it was rejected by him. Neither a copy of the application made to the Registrar nor a copy of the order of the Registrar rejecting the application for registration, has been produced by the appellant. There is, thus, no tangible evidence to show that the services of the appellant were terminated during the pendency of an application made to the Registrar for the registration of the Mehnatkash Union.
4. An additional ground for not accepting the appeal of the appellant is that it has not been established that the names of the office-bearers of the Mehnatkash Union were notified to the management as required by section 8-A, I. R.
0. Mr. Kohistani sought to rely on the letter, dated 5th November, 1979, which is at page 105 of the record of the learned Labour Court. This purports to be an intimation by the General Secretary of the Mehnatkash Union to the Manager of the respondent company intimating the names of the office-bearers of the Union. It is claimed that this intimation was delivered to and received by Mr. Imtiaz, who was then the Labour Officer of the Company. The receipt of this intimation, however, has been denied by the respondent Company. In fact, as early as on 4th February, 1980 in reply to the appellant's letter, dated 3rd February. 1980, in connection with the domestic enquiry which was being held against the appellant, the appellant has strongly denied the fact that any time any intimation was received by it of the names of the office-bearers or even the formation of the Mehnatkash Union. This denial is repeated by the respondent company in its letter, dated 4th March, 1980 which is at pages 89 to 91 of the record of the learned Labour Court. In the said letter it is further asserted that as far as the Management is aware no application for registration of any Union in their establishment was pending with the Registrar. In spite of the receipt of this letter, neither an intimation as required by section 8-A, I. R.
0. Was given to the respondent company of the names of the office-bearers or even the formation of the Mehnatkash Union. Furthermore, Mr. Imtiaz was not examined to establish receipt of the letter of 5th November, 1979 Mr. Kohistani further sought to rely upon the letter, dated 18th February 1980, from the appellant to the respondent company, wherein he has claimed that he was the President of the Mehnatkash Union. This letter cannot be said to have fulfilled to the requirement of section 8- A, I. R.
0., in regard to the Notification of the names of the office-bearers of the Union to the employer. This defect was pointed out by the respondent company to the appellant vide its letter, dated 4th March, 1980 but in spite of this fact the appellant or the Mehnatkash Union failed to comply with the requirement of section 8-A,
1. R.
0. As such, the objection of Mr. Kohistani, based on the ground that services of the appellant were terminated during the pendency of the registration of the Mehnatkash Union, in contravention of the provision of section 8-A, I.R.O., appears to have no substance and is, accordingly, repelled.
5. As already pointed out, two separate domestic enquiries were held against the appellant in respect of the two charge-sheets served upon him. The holding of these two enquiries has been admitted by the appellant in his additional affidavit. The record of the two enquiry proceedings was produced before the learned Labour Court and a perusal of the same establishes the charges of misconduct that were levelled against the appellant. There is nothing to indicate that the enquiries were held in an unlawful or improper manner. The appellant is only to blame himself for deliberately not participating in the enquiries.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.