DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad, who on 20th March, 1982 dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The facts of the appeal as they emerged from the record are that the appellant Abdul Haque was in the service of the respondents as a Turbine Operator. He obtained leave for 10th and 11th December, 1977 and then he proceeded to upcountry. He did not resume duty in the respondent mill till 16th February, 1978. In the meantime, i,e,, on 14th January, 1978 the appellant was dismissed from service. He challenged his dismissal in the Labour Court at Hyderabad under grievance petition but the same was also dismissed on 4th March, 1979. The appellant then appealed before this Tribunal which was decided on 15th October, 1979. This Tribunal set aside the order of the Labour Court but gave an option to the respondents to continue proceedings against the appellant after he was served with a second show-cause notice and a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report, The respondent was also authorised to pass appropriate orders in respect of the 'alleged misconduct of the appellant within one month from 15th October, 1979. In the alternative the appellant was to be re-instated. After decision of this Tribunal the appellant was issued second show-cause notice and was supplied a copy of the enquiry report. On 12th January, 1980 the appellant sent a reply to the second show-cause notice. Ultimately the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 14th January, 1978.
3. In his grievance petition he challenged his dismissal from service to be bad in Law, without jurisdiction and mala fide. In respect of the second show-cause notice, the appellant stated that the same could not be served upon him at his home address and that on receiving an intimation of the same he attended the respondent mill on 8th January, 1980 and on 9th January, 1980, he was given photo copy of second show-cause notice with enquiry report. The appellant contended that no charge-sheet was served upon him and no enquiry letter was issued to him and that the alleged enquiry was held on 10th February, 1980 although it was to take place on 11th January, 1978.
It was next alleged that no personal hearing was given to the appellant despite his prayer. The appellant claimed to have sent the grievance notice to the Manager of the respondent mill on 19th January, 1980 and on 20th February, 1980 he filed his grievance application.
4. The respondent defended the order of dismissal and took a stand that second show-cause notice was served upon the wife of the appellant who signed A/D receipt and she replied under letter rule 6 of the Labour Court record, that her husband was not present at home and the said letter was replied by the respondent wherein the wife of appellant Was advised to redirect the second show-cause notice to the appellant at his latest address. In reply to Exh. Rule 9, the wife of the appellant informed the respondent that the appellant was to return to home in the first week of June, 1980 and that the proceedings be withheld till 14th January, 1980. The respondents asserted that a charge-sheet was framed against the appellant for deliberately remaining absent without leave from 12th December, 1977 to 4th January, 1978. That the said charge was served on the appellant who was afforded full opportunity for being heard. The Enquiry Officer was also appointed.
5. The appeal was argued by Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi. Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Races Mushtaq, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent-mills.
6. In the evidence of the appellant, he admitted that he obtained leave for 10th and 11th December, 1977 and that further he sent an application on 13th December, 1977 by ordinary post seeking further leave. This application was not received by the respondent nor the medical certificate was received or it was produced in the course of evidence. The appellant further stated that be remained under treatment at Rawalpindi for one week and then went to his village in District Campbellpur where he remained till 1st February, 1978 and then went to Lahore and stayed there for 15 days. This narration of the appellant in evidence shows that he did not care for his duties as an employee of the respondent-mills and that he did not care to communicate his whereabouts to the respondent-mills while he was travelling from Lahore to Rawalpindi and back. In PLD 1981 SC 225, it was held that the appellant is bound and it was incumbent upon him to inform his whereabouts. The admissions of the appellant are clear and that he was unmindful of the absence from his duties for more than 10 days and that he was found guilty of misconduct as defined in Standing Order 14(3). Even the second show-cause notice was correctly sent on the correct address and was received by the wife of the appellant. The replies of the wife show an evasive behavior.
7. In nutshell after hearing of the arguments of both the Advocates and after perusing the evidence on record, I am also of the opinion that the appellant did remain wilfully absent and he was rightly dismissed. Therefore, this appeal has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.