' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 22-1-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur. The Labour Court re-instated the respondent but held that a fresh enquiry should be commenced within two months from the date of the impugned order, if the appellants so choose.
2. The facts which are gathered from the material on record are that Abdul Hakeem Jagirani, the respondent in this case was appointed as a Chowkidar by the appellants. The respondent as alleged by him, suddenly fell ill and remained under medical treatment from 11-4-1981 to 5-3-1982.
According to the respondent, he was treated by Doctor Gul Muhammad Jumani and the certificates issued by Dr.Jumani were countersigned by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sukkur.
On 6-3-1982, the respondent appears to have recovered and he went to the office of the appellants to permit him to join the duties but he was not so permitted. He was refused to be parmitted to join the duty even by the Head Office at Karachi when he visited the Head Office on 8- 3-1982. On 24-3-1982, the appellants informed the respondent in writing that he had been dismissed from service. Then, on 1-4-1982. The respondent gave grievance notice to the appellants and received the reply in negative. Finally, on 29-4-1982, he filed the grievance application in the VIlth Labour Court at Sukkur.
3. In the written statement of the appellants by their Attorney, Mohammad Afzal, the stand taken by the appellants was that the respondent was appointed as a Chowkidar and worked in the capacity of a Chowkidar. The respondent remained absent from 11-4-1981 without any leave application or intimation. A show-cause notice was issued on 14-4-1981 and was served on the respondent by registered post A/D and that thereafter a charge-sheet was also served upon him through registered post A/D and the domestic enquiry was conducted against him. He was found to be guilty of misconduct and he was dismissed from service. After the enquiry, a second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent through registered post A/D, but the respondent refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the second show-cause notice was published in the Daily 'fang', Karachi, dated 30-6-1981. A legal issue was raised by the appellants in this case that the respondent was a Chowkidar and was not a workman as defined by the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
4. The arguments were advanced before this Tribunal by Advocate Mr. Muhammad Humayoon on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Hassan Hameedi, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent. I have gone through the evidence recorded in the Labour Court and have read the impugned order.
5. On behalf of the respondent, Abdul Hakeem Jagirani filed his affidavit, Exh.3 and Master Mir Muhammad, Exh.4. On behalf of the appellants, affidavits of Muhammad Afzal Exh.5 and Ghazanfar All Jafry, Exh.6 and Amjad Mahmood Exh.7. The three Issues were framed by the learned Labour Court. They are as followed:-
(i) Whether the applicant is a workman?
(ii) Whether the notice under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 given by the applicant and the grievance application of the applicant are time-barred?
(iii) Whether the applicant has been illegally dismissed from service?
6. As regards Issue No.1, whether the respondent was a workman or not, the evidence is discussed by the learned Labour Court and I do not want to touch it. But the issues Nos. 2 and 3 are to be looked into minutely in conjunction with the circumstances that attend on the entire situation. In this respect the evidence of the respondent appears to be very important and it makes significant disclosures and it also comments on the conduct of the respondent, Abdul Hakeem Jagirani. There is one document Exh.3-G at Annexure "R/19" which is signed by the respondent himself and has mentioned the date 20-5-1981. The respondent, Abdul Hakeem, therefore, know that the enquiry was being conducted against him on 20-5-1981. Following are the words of the document Exh .3- G:- "Further to Enquiry Notice No. PF/AH/CHOW/23739, dated 06-01-1981.
' This is to inform you that the enquiry has been postponed and you are now directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer Mr. Ghazanfar Jaffri on 27th May, 1981 at 10-00 a.m. At P.S.O. Sangi Depot.
Sd. Amjad Mahmood Khan. ' c .c . 0 M . Depots. ' c.c. C.O.D. Khi ' c.c. I.R.M. - The employee appeared on due date time and ' place.
' Sd.Abdul Hakeem Jagirani.
' 20-5-1981."
' This document was signed by the respondent on 20-5-1981. His contention was that he went to appear on 20-5-1981, but the enquiry was not conducted as the Enquiry Officer, Abrar Hussain was changed. He was duly intimated and his signatures appear on the document. He, therefore, knew that the enquiry would be held by Ghazanfar Ali Jafry on 27-5-1981. Mr. Mir Muhammad, the teacher, Government High School,Kandhara, in his cross-examination has accepted the facts that he received the registered letters Exhs. 4-A, 4-B, 4-C and 4-D and he was a signatory to these letters and that he delivered those letters to one Tongawala who belongs to the village of Abdul Hakeem Jagirani, the respondent. These letters, therefore, were duly served on the respondent. It was the responsibility of the respondent to collect these letters from the Head Master whose address, he has himself given. The letters were given to Tongawala on trust but if they were not delivered to the respondent, it does not mean that the letters were not served when they were sent under registered post, A/D. It is to be noted that the respondent Abdul Hakeem remained absent without intimation from 11-4-1981 till 10-3-1982. For the first time he produced the photostat copies of the Medical Certificates for the entire period from April, 1981 to March, 1982. Although in the meantime he has appeared before the Enquiry Officer or the office of the Appellants on 20-5-1981 and was a signatory to a document Exh.3-G and that he knew fully well that an enquiry was being conducted against him for misconduct, namely, for absence from duty. This all goes against the respondent. He defaulted from appearance in the domestic enquiry but also he defaulted from presenting himself at a reasonable time in the office of the appellants to show that he was really ill and that the Medical Certificates that he got from the Doctors should have been produced by him at the earlier date before the appellants' Depot at Sangi. The post Sangi was hardly about 20 or 15 miles from Kandharo, the village of the respondent. From the evidence on record, it proves that the respondent remained absent from duty wilfully and also he remained absent from the domestic enquiry wilfully as he was quite present in the month of May, 1981, when the enquiry was scheduled to be commenced on 27-5-1981. Thereafter, the respondent disappeared and remained absent till March, 1982, when he came before the office of the appellants and made an application for pardoning him.
7. The enquiry on the whole was conducted on the basis of his non-attendance and on the basis that he avoided to face the enquiry deliberately. It, therefore, is a fact proved that the respondent was quite conscious of the enquiry and he had deliberately avoided to fact it. The second show- cause notice of his dismissal was published in the Daily 'Jang'. There is no shortcoming in the enquiry conducted by the appellants in this regard.
8. The conduct and behaviour of the respondent was that he had developed chronic habit to remain absent from the duty and as it is obvious from the enquiry and the behaviour of the respondent in this case.
9. The grievance application is obviously time-barred since it was filed at a belated stage after seven months of his dismissal. This is because he knew that the enquiry was being conducted in the month of May, 1981.
10. Under these circumstances, I do not maintain the impugned order and give my decision against the respondent.
11. In the result, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order and the respondent stands dismissed from date the enquiry was completed against him.