This is an appeal against the impugned order, dated 8-5-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1, Karachi, whereby he had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The case is an old one and the incident of absence of the appellant dates back to the year 1978 and the facts mentioned in the impugned order are chequered and have a long story. In nutshell the appellant was a workman in the respondent-mills. The allegation was that in the month of October, 1978, he fell ill and got treatment from the Social Security Institution from 29-10-1978 to 3- 12-1978. It is alleged by the appellant that the Sind Employees Social Security Institution granted him sick leave for that period and declared him fit to resume duties from 3-12-1978. From 4-12-1978 to 9-12-1978, the appellant continued to go to the respondent-mills but he was not allowed to resume duties and was gate-stopped. Hence, he sent a grievance notice, dated 9-12-1978 alongwith a letter, dated 17-12-1978 but this grievance notice and the letter was not heeded to.
Therefore, he believed that his services were terminated by the respondent mills hence he filed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. , 1969, being the Petition No. 10/79. In written statement filed by the respondent mills the claim of the appellant was denied. It was stated by the respondent that on 18-10-1978, they had issued B-2 Forms to the appellant for the period of sickness from 7-10-1978 to 15-10-1978 when he was declared fit to resume duties with effect from 16-10-1978. No B-2 Form was issued to the appellant from 29-10-1978 to 2-12-1978. It was denied by the respondent that during that period the appellant ever sent any application for sick leave or sent M.1 or M.2 Forms issued by the Sind Employees Social Security Institution. It was stated that the appellant appeared to resume his duties on 9-12-1978 when he was informed that disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated against him by the management for his long absence from 29-10-1978 to 3-12-1978. It was further submitted by the respondents that on the same date a second show-cause notice, dated 4-12-1978 was served personally on the appellant and he was asked to submit his explanation. After the receipt of that notice, the appellant disappeared and sent a letter to the respondents by registered post alongwith M. 1 and M. 2 Forms and the fitness certificate. On this, the respondents sent a reply directing the appellant to report for duty as his absence from 29-10-1978 to 2-12-1978 had been treated as leave without pay. He was also informed that second show-cause notice has been withdrawn by the management. Even thereafter the appellant did not appear to resume his duties and sent a letter on 17-12-1978 making the false allegations against the management that he had been gate-stopped. Thereafter the appellant did not resume his duties and completely disappeared. Hence the management was compelled to issue a charge-sheet, dated 4-1-1979 for habitual absence and absence for more than 10 days. This charge-sheet was sent by registered post at the appellant's Karachi address and the copies thereof were pasted on the Notice Board of the Mills and also they were sent to the Collective Bargaining Agent union as well. The appellant did not participate in the enquiry fixed for 20-1-1979 and also he remained absent during the subsequent dates. While the enquiry was still pending he moved a grievance petition before IVth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, which was dismissed as premature directing the appellant to participate in the domestic enquiry which was already pending before the management. But the appellant did not participate in the domestic enquiry and instead had preferred an appeal before this Tribunal which was withdrawn by him on 28-9-1980 on the grounds that another grievance petition was moved by him in the Labour Court against his dismissal from service. On this ground the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. The grievance petition in the instant case is the second grievance petition filed by the appellant on 22-7-1980. In this petition the same grounds were given and the same statements of the parties were given. Present grievance petition was fixed on 16-10-1980, when the appellant was to file affidavit in evidence. The appellant did not file the affidavit and hence the grievance petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. He again came in appeal before this Tribunal who remanded the case back to the. Labour Court to afford another opportunity. On 4-3-1981, the appellant filed his affidavit in evidence as Exh. He also filed an additional affidavit on 13-7-1981. The affidavit of the enquiry officer, Syed Israr Hussain was filed by the respondent-mills together with the affidavit of Abdul Hadi Fareed, Manager Administration of the respondent-mills as Exh.
4.
4. I have heard the appellant and also Mr. Abdul Hadi Fareed. I have read the impugned order and gone through the record of the proceedings. It appears from the evidence that the appellant remained absent and did not care even to attend the enquiry proceedings although chances were afforded to him from time to time. He was not gate-stopped as alleged by him because he was allowed to resume duties and his period of absence was counted as leave without pay. This shows that the management was over-kind with him but the appellant was adamant and careless and he absented himself from the proceedings and rushed to the Labour Court to get the redress. The Labour Court dismissed his first grievance petition and afforded him a chance to appear before the domestic enquiry which was still pending. The appellant did not care to participate in the proceedings. The management was compelled to dismiss him. There is no worthwhile evidence given by the appellant in his affidavit to prove that any injustice is done to him and that he was not allowed to resume his duties. It appears from the record that he has been habitual absentee and at different occasions he had remained absent and was charge-sheeted. A number of times he was condoned and again allowed to resume duties. In view of these facts the appellant was dismissed and the management was justified to do so.
5. Under these circumstances, I do not find any force in this appeal which is very old pending and hereby dismiss the same.