The appellant, who was employed as a Ring Double Sider in the respondent mills, was served with charge-sheet, dated 16tbi December, 19811. The charges against the appellant were, firstly, that on the night between 16/17th December 1980, it was found that he had abandoned his machine and he himself w is found sleeping in the Chandoo Khana, with the consequence that the yarn produced on the machine was spoiled and damaged and secondly, that on the same night when Jobber, Nizamuddin questioned the appellant about his negligence, the appel--lant assaulted the jobber with a Balon. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, dated 19th December, 1980, in which he dented both the allegations made against him in the charge-sheet. As the management was not satisfied with the explanation of the appellant, the Record Keeper, Abdul Latif, was appointed as an enquiry officer against the appellant and the enquiry was fixed for 24th December, 1980. The appellant objected to the enquiry being held against him on the grounds, firstly, that the enquiry to be held by an officer of the Labour Directorate and secondly, that the A. S.
1. Police and certain other witnesses named by him be called in defence. However, on 24th Decem- -ber, 1980, the appellant did appear before the enquiry officer, Abdul Latif, but when he was informed that his request for the enquiry to be con--ducted by an officer of the Labour Directorate had been rejected he and his co-worker, Qamaruddin, whom he had nominated to assist him, walked out and boycotted the enquiry, with the result that the enquiry was conducted ex parte. In the enquiry, witnesses Nizamuddin Jobber, Moinuddin Head Jobber, Mohammad Yousaf and Wali Mohammad were examined. They supported the allegations against the appellant. On the basis of that evidence, the enquiry officer by his report, dated 18th January, 1981, gave a finding that the charges against the appellant had been established. The appellant was thereupon served a second show-cause notice but as his explanation to the second show-cause notice was not found satisfactory, he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 25th January, 1981
2. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned VIth Labour Court , at Hyderabad, but the learned Labour Court dismissed the appellants' grievance petition by its decision, given on 27th February, 1982. The learned Labour Court has held that the guilt of the appellant had been established throughout domestic enquiry which the appellant, unjustifiably boycotted. The learned Labour Court also, repelled the contention that the enquiry officer was either based against the appellant or that the appellant was not afforded the reasonable opportunity for defence. -Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
3. Mr. Kaimkhani, the learned counsel for the appellant workman has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour. Court on the following grounds : -
(i) That the charges againg the appellant were not proved against him,
(ii) That the dismissal of the appellant was mala fide.
(i.e) That the enquiry against the appellant was ex parte and no proper opportunity was given to him for defence.
4. As already indicated in the domestic enquiry as many as 4 wit--nesses were examined by the enquiry officer. They are Jobber, Nizam--uddin, Head Jobber Mainuddin, Mohammad Yousaf and Wali Mohammad. The main witnesses against the appellant is Jobber Nizamuddin under whom the appellant was working. He has testified that on the night between the 16th/17th December, 1980, he had found the appellant absent from his duty on his machine and sleeping in the Chandee Khana, once at 3.00 p. m. And the second time at 5.20 a. m. He has further testified that on both occasions although the appellant was absent and in fact was sleeping, the machine under his charge was working and by reason of lack of supervision, the machine was giving faulty production of yarn. The witness also testified that when he questioned appellant about his absence and negligence, the latter picked up a balon and assaulted him with the same, but he was rescued by other workers.
Jobber Nizamuddin is substantially supported by Head Jobber Moinuddin to whom the report about the absence of the appellant from his machine was made by Jobber Nizainud--din. The Head Jobber has also testified that in his presence the appel--lant had spoken harsh words against Jobber Nizamuddin and attempted to assault him with Balon which he had picked up. The above 2 witnesses Muhammad Yousaf and Wali Mohammad, who were co-workers of the appellant, also testified about the appellant using angry and harsh words towards Nizamuddin and picking up a Balon to assault him. This evidence stands un-challenged. The evidence of the above witnesses firmly establishes the 2 charges levelled against the appellant.
5. Coming to the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, it may pointed out that there is no tangible evidence to sub--stantiate the allegation that the action taken against the appellant was mala fide. As already pointed out, a proper domestic enquiry was ordered against him in which 4 witnesses were examined who testified against the appellant. Notice of the enquiry officer was given to the appellant and he in fact attended before the enquiry officer on the date of hearing, but he made an unreasonable demand that the enquiry should by con--ducted by an officer of the Labour Directorate and when his demand was not acceded to by the management, both he and his co-worker. Qamaruddin, whom he had nominated to assist him, walked out from the proceedings and boycotted the same. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in fact the enquiry officer had told the appellant that no enquiry would be held on 24th December, 1980, and it was on that account that he and his co-worker, Qamaruddin, walked out. There is, however, no evidence except the bare word of the appellant, in this behalf. Even the co-worker was not examined by the appellant nor did the appel--lant make any complaint to the management that the enquiry officer had held the enquiry proceedings behind his back after informing him that the enquiry cannot be held on 24th December, 1980
6. While dealing with the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, I have also substantially dealt with his third conten--tion. Since the appellant and his co-worker Qamaruddin, unreason--ably walked out from the enquiry and boycotted the same, the enquiry officer was justified in holding ex parse enquiry against him.
7. No other contention was raised on behalf of the appellant.
8 For the reasons discussed by me above, I am satisfied that there was tangible evidence in support of the 2 charges against the appellant and that the management was justified on such serious charges of misconduct to dismiss the appellant from service. I would accordingly up--hold the findings of the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal in limine.