' This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 28th February, 1983, dismissing the grievance petition preferred by the appellant challenging his dismissal from the service of the respondent-Company.
2. The facts of this case, shortly stated, are that the appellant was employed as a Messenger in the respondent-Company. According to the appellant on 14th September, 1981, he had received 2 telegrams, one informing him that his mother was seriously ill, and the other requiring him to come to his native place in N.-W. F. P., in connection with urgent domestic affairs. The appellant accordingly submitted a leave application on 15th September, 1981, but without caring to see whether the leave was sanctioned he proceeded to his native place on 16th September, 1981. The appellant's application for leave was rejected by the Management and he was telegraphically informed of its decision at his address at his native place. The appellant failed to resume his duties even on expiry of the period for which he had initially applied for leave, namely, on 2nd October, 1981, and instead sent a telegram to the Management requesting for extension of leave on the ground of the illness of his mother. Ultimately, the appellant resumed his duties with the respondent establishment on 20th October, 1981, when he was served with a show-cause notice, dated 15th October, 1981. In his explanation, dated 25th October, 1981, the appellant while admitting that he had availed of -leave without the same being sanctioned, submitted that as he had received a telegram on 14th September, 1981, intimating him that his mother was ill and as there was no person to look after her he had left for his village in the hope that his application for leave would be sanctioned in the circumstances. The explanation of the appellant was not found satisfactory and accordingly the Management decided to hold a domestic enquiry against him and by letter, dated 5th November, 1981, which perhaps inadvertently has been captioned as charge-sheet, informed him that the enquiry officer Majid Hussain, will hold the enquiry on 20th November, 1981 at 9.00 a. m. And he (the appellant) should bring his witnesses with him on the same date. The enquiry officer also, by his letter, dated 9th November, 1980, informed the appellant that the enquiry will be held on 20th November, 1981 at 9 hours at the Regional Office of the respondent-Company. The domestic enquiry was duly held by the enquiry officer Majid Hussain on the above date and in that enquiry the appellant was assisted by a co-worker, Ghulam Qadir Siddiqi. In the domestic enquiry the regional representative of the respondent establishment Anwar Hussain was examined on behalf of the respondent-Company and the statement of the appellant was also recorded. On the basis of the evidence before him, including the documentary evidence consisting of the Attendance Card of the appellant and the various letters/telegrams exchanged between the parties, the enquiry officer came to the finding that the misconduct of the appellant had been duly established. The appellant was accordingly dismissed from service vide order.
Dated 14th January, 1982, after a second show-cause notice was served upon the appellant, the reply whereto was not found satisfactory by the Management.
3. The learned Labour Court has held that as the appellant has received his dues in full and final settlement and signed a stamped receipt in this behalf he is no longer an aggrieved person and accordingly his grievance petition is not maintainable. On merits, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from his duties for a period exceeding 14 days. It rejected the contentions of the appellant that he had gone to his native place on account of the serious illness of his mother on receipt of a telegram to that effect. The learned Labour Court also rejected the plea of the respondent-Company that the Standing Orders are not applicable to its establishment at Hyderabad.
4. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on 3 grounds. His first ground of attack was that it has not been established that the appellant in fact has received all his dues and hence it cannot be said that the stamped receipt signed by the appellant is an acknowledgment of full and final settlement.
Elaborating his arguments in this behalf, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi stated that the appellant was entitled to Provident Fund but the receipt purporting to be full and final settlement was only in respect of the earned wages of the appellant. I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel. The receipt which is at page 193 of the record of the learned Labour Court, does not state that the amount of Rs, 505.19 which was being paid to the appellant was only in respect of the wages due to him but makes it clear that it was in full and final settlement of all the dues of the appellant against the respondent-Company. Such dues would thus include the dues to which the appellant was entitled on account of the G. P. Fund policy of the company. No questions were suggested to the witness of the respondent-Company by the appellant that after the signing of the appellant of the full and final payment receipt any dues of the appellant still remained to be paid or that the full and final payment receipt was in respect of the part of the dues of the appellant.
Since the appellant had received his dues in full and final settlement and had signed a stamped receipt in this behalf, he ceased to be an aggrieved person and hence it has rightly been held by the learned Labour Court that' he is not entitled to file and maintain his grievance petition.
5. It was next contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that the enquiry proceedings stand vitiated as 5 pages of the statement of the witness of the respondent-Company, Anwar Hussain, had been replaced. The basis for this allegation is that these 5 pages though they bear the signatures of witness Anwar Hussain, do not bear the signatures of the appellant or the enquiry officer. Both the enquiry officer and witness Anwar Hussain, who were examined before the learned Labour Court, however, have denied that the 5 pages in question have been replaced. Admittedly each page of the statement of witness Anwar Hussain has been signed by him. Furthermore, the signatures of the appellant and the workman assisting him in the enquiry appear at the end of the statement of witness Anwar Hussain. Finally, it may be mentioned that the main evidence of Anwar Hussain is about the absence of the appellant without leave with effect from 16th September, 1981 to 15th October, 1981 and such absence has not been denied or disputed by the respondent. There was thus no reason for the Management or the enquiry officer to replace any part of the statement of Anwar Hussain.
6. It was finally contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that the appellant was compelled by circumstances beyond his control to proceed to his native village. These circumstances, according to the learned counsel, were the serious illness of his mother and the fact that the appellant had some urgent work to attend to at his native place. Now as regards the latter ground, it cannot be said that the action of the appellant in absenting from his duties without obtaining leave was justified or was excusable specially as even the nature of the work which the appellant is alleged to have had at his native place has not been disclosed. As regards the alleged sickness of the appellant's mother, it is clear that the telegram in this behalf, which is said to have been sent from the native place of the appellant, did not reach the appellant before he left for his native place and hence he could not have known about her illness when he absented from his duties with effect from 16th September, 1981. It has been claimed by the appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice as well as in his grievance petition that the telegram about the illness of his mother was received by him on 14th September, 1981. The said telegram was produced before the learned Labour Court and appears at page 105 of the record of the learned Labour Court, The endorsement on the telegram indicates that it was received at Hyderabad on 17th September, 1981. It thus appears that it had reached Hyderabad after the appellant had left for his native place and not on 14th September, 1981, as claimed by the appellant. There is another strong circumstance indicating that the appellant was quite unaware of the illness of his mother when he applied for leave on 15th September, 1981. In his leave application the appellant has made no mention about the illness of his mother but has requested for leave on the ground that he had to settle some urgent domestic affairs at his native place. If the appellant had come to know on 14th September, 1981 about the serious illness of his mother, he would have certainly mentioned this fact in his leave application. It may finally be mentioned that there is no tangible evidence in support of the plea of the appellant that his mother was seriously ill, apart from the telegram which reached at Hyderabad on 16th September, 1981 and which telegram was neither from the father nor from the brother of the appellant but from one Faryad. It is not known how this Faryad is related to the appellant and why he sent this telegram when the father and brother of the appellant were admittedly alive and available. I am, therefore, satisfied that the appellant had no compelling reasons to absent himself from his duties without leave and that in any case his absence from duties without leave was not beyond his control.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine..