DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of the IInd Sind Labour Court Karachi, who vide his order dated 11th February, 1984 has dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. The facts are that appellant was a permanent workman of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., since 1974. He fell ill on 1st March, 1982 and thereafter he did not attend the respondent Bank. He was suffering from hepatitis and was being treated by Dr. Abu Zafar who had advised him for rest for four weeks. According to the appellant he submitted an application, dated 13th March, 1982 alongwith the Medical Certificate of Abu Zafar. The respondents replied on 29th March, 1982, requesting the appellant to join the duties immediately. The appellant thereafter sent another application, dated 10th April, 1982 for further leave for four weeks which was not replied by the respondents, Thereafter, the respondent sent a show-cause notice, dated 21st April, 1982 and the show-cause notice was replied by the appellant on 28th April, 1982. The appellant was, however, advised to appear before Dr. Abdul Aziz Khan for Medical examination. Dr. Abdul Aziz Khan examined him so far as the blood, urine and X-Ray was concerned. But the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and requested for further leave for four weeks from 1st May, 1982.
The appellant then sent an application for grant of three months leave from 7th June, 1982. This correspondence of the appellant was not replied by the respondents. The inquiry was initiated against the appellant and published a notice of enquiry in Daily `fang', dated 12th June, 1982. At this juncture, the appellant attended the enquiry. He did not cross-examine the respondents' witness, nor did he examine his defence though a chance was given to him. His pretext was that he was too sick to cross-examine or to lead his defence. On 2nd August, 1982, he was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed the grievance petition.
3.
3. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply statement is namely, that he was though serving with the Bank, but remained absent from 1st March, 1982 without authorization and approval.
However, the appellant's letter, dated 13th April, 1982 was received by the respondents on 21st April, 1982 with a photostat copy of the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Abu Zafar, which was dated 8th April, 1982, in which he requested for leave for four weeks. In order to ascertain the facts of ailment, a letter was issued by the respondents on 2nd May, 1982 directing the appellant to submit himself before Dr. Abdul Aziz Khan for necessary medical check up. The appellant avoided all the directions simply informed the respondents by his letter, dated, 2nd May, 1982 of his request for extending leave for one month. In the meantime the respondents addressed a letter to the Bank's Doctor, Abdul Aziz Khan, making reference of the photo copy of the letter addressed to appellant earlier which was dated 2nd May, 1982, enclosing a photograph of the appellant for necessary identification. On 15th May, 1982, Dr. Abdul Aziz Khan advised the respondent management that the person whom he had examined on 9th May, 1982 and sent for investigation is not the same person as in the photograph which was sent to him vide letter, dated 9th May, 1982. The appellant continued to remain absent without proper authorization or approval from his superiors and demanded leave without furnishing to the authorities concerned Medical Certificate from Bank's Dr. Abdul Aziz Khan. Doctor Abdul Aziz Khan has denied that the real person had appeared before him.
Therefore, a charge-sheet was issued on 20th May, 1982 and the appellant was directed to personally appear before the Enquiry Officer on 29th May, 1982. The appellant did not respond to the notice of enquiry, did not come to attend the proceedings and continued to remain absent without any information. The respondent management was left with no alternative but to publish a notice of enquiry in the Press. The publication of the notice in the Press was made on 12th June, 1982. The appellant on seeing the publication in the Press submitted a letter, dated 13th June, 1982 requesting leave for further three months without pay. The appellant presented himself for enquiry on 3rd July, 1982 and submitted his statement in the course of the enquiry proceedings. He was given full opportunity to submit his defence, to examine and cross-examine his witnesses, but he refused to do so pretending that he was ailing. He was, therefore, dismissed on 2nd August, 1982.
4. I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Jameel Akhtar and Mr. Samiullah Khan for the respondents.
5. I have also gone through the enquiry papers. The appellant has refused to cross-examine the witnesses although an opportunity was given to him. He did not wish to lead his defence although he was asked to do so. It appears that the management had delayed the enquiry only because initially they had appeared to have granted four weeks leave to the appellant. That means upto the 1st of April, 1982, they delayed the enquiry. However, they wanted the appellant to appear before the Bank. Since the appellant did not appear and went on sending leave applications, ultimately an enquiry was held. In the case papers it appears that a photograph was sent alongwith a letter to Doctor Abdul Aziz Khan to verify whether the appellant had appeared before him. Doctor Abdul Aziz Khan replied that the person whose photograph was sent to him was not the person he had examined. This shows that the appellant was tricky enough to avoid appearance before the Medical Officer. The broad facts to be considered are that the ailment known as hepatitis requires rest and proper treatment for one month only. The appellant had not gone to appear before the management for a number of months. The argument of Mr. Samiullab Khan was that the appellant was not present in the country. The appellant came much later on when the enquiry was conducted. The behaviour of the appellant in not cross-examining the witnesses and also refusing to lead evidence was tantamount of bycotting the enquiry. He was quite hale and hearty as he appeared in the said enquiry. He could have asked two or three questions and he A could have substantiated his ailment by examining his witnesses. The learned Labour Court has observed that "this contention has no force inasmu ch as the fact that the appellant attended the enquiry proceedings and remained present throughout clearly shows that he was in such a state of health that if he desired he could have cross examined the respondent's witness and could also have adduced evidence on his behalf. This is the observation of the learned Labour Court and I am in full agreement with him. In all probabilities, the contentions of Mr. Samiullah Khan that the appellant was not so ill but was not in the country for a number of months till he came back to attend the enquiry. In fact he bycotted the enquiry, his conduct was unsavoury.
6. I have gone through the papers and the impugned order and am in full agreement with the order of the learned Labour Court and find no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.