The appellant, who was employed as an assembler in the respondent establishment, which is a taken-over industry, was served with the following show-cause notice on 19th August, 1980 :- "It has been reported by Security Guard Mr. Muhammad Gul No. 54, Time Keeper Mr. Malik Dost Muhammad and Mr. Ghafoor Shah that at 22.00 hrs. On 18th August, 1980 you punched the Time Card of another worker namely Mr. Tariq Bashir, Badge No. 115-24 in addition of punching your own card and that you were seen while in the act of punching the Time Card of Mr. Tariq Bashir, Badge No. 115-24.
The above act on your part constitutes misconduct of Fraud and dis--honesty in connection with the employer's business under clause No. 15 (3) (b) of Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
You are therefore, required to submit your written explanation and show cause within 48 hours of receipt of this show-cause notice as to why disciplinary action should not he taken against you.
Please note that if you fail to submit your written explanation and show cause within the specified time the matter will proceed ex pane."
A domestic enquiry based on the aforesaid show-cause notice was held against the appellant by Javed Iqbal Awan, Deputy Manager M. H. D. A number of witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer and they testified to the fact that the appellant had unauthorisedly punched the card of an absent workman, Tariq Bashir. On the basis of those state--ments and the admission made by the appellant in his own hand that he had unauthorisedly punched the card of the absent workman, Tariq Bashir, that he frankly admits his fault and that he promises never to commit such an error again, the enquiry officer gave a finding that the charge against the appellant, as stated in the charge-sheet stood established. The appellant was then served with a second show-cause notice and was also given an opportunity of a personal hearing before the manage--ment, which he availed of. Ultimately, the appellant was dismissed from service by Order, dated 17th November, 1980
2. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal on the ground that no formal charge was served upon him, that the enquiry officer was prejudiced against him, that a part of the enquiry proceedings was un-- reasonably held ex parte against him and that the dismissal orders in respect of him are unjustified and in violation of the principles of law and natural justice. The learned Labour Court, is its impugned decision, repelled the various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant had held that the show-cause notice was served upon the appellant within the pres- -cribed period, that the domestic enquiry was fair and impartial and full opportunity was given to the appellant to explain the circumstances against him, that the appellant had unmasonably boycotted the later part of the enquiry proceedings with the result that the enquiry officer had no alter-- hold the enquiry proceedings ex parte and that the guilt of the appellant was fully established not only through the statements of the witnesses recorded during the domestic enquiry but also by the written admission made by the appellant. A further issue which was raised before the learned Labour Court was whether the dismissal orders in respect of the appellant were passed by a competent authority. The learned Labour Court declined to give any weight to the challenge made on behalf of the appellant to the competence of the authority passing the orders of dismissal in respect of the appellant as no such point was raised in the grievance notice, in the grievance petition or even in the affidavit filed before it.
3. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on 2 grounds. His first ground was that the misconduct of the appellant had not been es-- tablished. However, when his attention was drawn to the evidence record--ed in the enquiry proceedings and to the written admission of the appel--lant, confessing to have wrongly punched the card of his friend and co--worker, Tariq Bashir, and asking for forgiveness for such a wrong act, the learned counsel gave up this point. He, however, sought to argue that the appellant had been dismissed by an authority who was not com--petent to do so. He based his arguments on the order of dismissal itself and the evidence given before the learned Labour Court by Mr. Harold A. Meik, Industrial Relations Manager in the respondent establishment. The order of dismissal has been signed by Mr. Harold A. Meik. In his evidence before the learned Labour Court , he admitted that neither he nor Mr. Hashmi, the Senior Manager, is the authority competent to award punishment to workers in the respondent establishment. He, how--ever, stated that Mr. Anwar Khan the Managing Director of the respon--dent establishment who was the competent punishing authority in the establishment had delegated powers of the Managing Director to him for issuance of dismissal letter. The evidence of Mr. Harold A. Meik makes it clear that though he does not have nor he is delegated the powers of dismissing any workman in the respondent establishment he is only autho--rized to sign the dismissal orders. Presumably after the dismissal is approved by the competent authority. As on the one hand no challenge to the competence of the authority issuing the dismissal orders had been raised by the appellant in his grievance notice, grievance petition or even in his evidence and on the other hand, the evidence of Mr. Harold A. Meik merely indicated that he had been. Authorized to issue orders of dismissal but was not the competent authority to dismiss any workman, Mr. Harold A. Meik was further examined by this Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying myself whether in fact it was Mr. Harold A. Meik who had dismissed the appellant or whether he had obtained the approval of the competent authority i.e., the Managing Director, before issuing the dismissal orders in respect of the appellant. In his evidence before this Tribunal, Mr. Harold A. Meik stated that the case of the appellant had been put up to the Managing Director through the usual channel i.e. The Departmental Head, Manager, Industrial Relations (Mr. Harold A. Meik), Manager Finance and the General Manager (Technical) and after the approval of the Managing Director had been obtained, orders of dismissal in respect of the appellant were issued and signed by him. The printed form on which the approval of the Managing Director was obtain--ed was produced by Mr. Harold A. Meik. It also bears the signatures o the other authorities through whom the papers were submitted to the A Managing Director. . It is thus clear that the approval 9f the Managing Director was obtained to the dismissal of the appellant and Mr. Harold A. Meik had merely signed the orders for the dismissal of the appellant I would, therefore, agree with the submission of Mr. Syed Qamaruddin Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondent establishment, that the dismissal orders were passed by a competent authority.
4. For the reasons discussed by me I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.