DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 10-2-1985, passed by the learned Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had dismissed the petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman in the respondent Establishment since last seven years and was also holding the post of Propaganda Secretary in the C.B.A. Union and so the respondent Establishment being displeased with him wanted to victimize him on one pretext or the other and in consequence thereof had issued a false and baseless charge-sheets, dated 4-3-1984, 11-3-1984 and 24-4-1984. Though the appellant claimed to have satisfactorily replied to these charge-sheets, yet, an enquiry notice, dated 25-4- 1984 was received by him on 2-5-1984 and the enquiry was conducted on 6-5-1984 in which he participated and raised several objections with regard to the conduct of the enquiry which were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and this was conducted in Director's room in his presence.
That, as nothing was proved against the appellant, therefore, he requested to supply the report of the Enquiry Officer and statement of witnesses, but, the respondent Establishment had illegally dismissed him, vide letter, dated 14-5-1984. The appellant claimed that as the order of dismissal was issued by the incompetent authority, therefore, he submitted a grievance notice, dated 17-5- 1984 and thereafter a petition before the learned Labour Court
3. The respondent Establishment resisted the petition and submitted that the appellant was a permanent workman and that they were not hostile to him due to his trade union activities. That, as the' appellant had committed various acts of misconduct, therefore, several charge-sheets were issued to him and his explanations were not found satisfactory, so, as, enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him. That, as, with regard to the charge-sheets, dated 4-3-1984 and 11-3-1984 an enquiry was fixed for 24-4-1984, but he did not participate in the same, therefore, another letter, dated 25-4-1984 was sent to him at his residential address as well as at the office of the C.B.A.
Union and was also got published in Daily 'Jasarat' dated 28-4-1984 and even after these formalities, the appellant did not attend the enquiry on 29-4-1984, so, an ex parte proceedings were held against him in which he was found guilty of the misconduct, vide charge-sheet, dated 4- 3-1984 and 11-3-1984. However, the appellant had participated in the domestic enquiry, vide charge-sheet, dated 24-4-1984 in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The appellant did not raise any objections against the conduct of this enquiry and the Enquiry Officer, in view of the enquiry proceedings, found him guilty of the acts of misconduct. The respondent Establishment has further submitted that, however, the actions were taken in the matter by the General Manager of the Establishment who was the duly notified Manager under the Factories Act, and that the allegations of victimization or illegality was incorrect, hence, the appellant could not maintain his petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
The learned Labour Court , thereafter, dismissed the petition, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Shafi Muhammadi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood A.
Ghani, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent Establishment. It is an amitted fact on record that the appellant had failed to adduce any cogent, reliable and direct evidence to prove the hostility enmity on account of trade union activities and that the Management bore any grudge towards him, so, he was victimized. It was incumbent upon the appellant to prove as such, to which he failed to do so. In the absence of any such evidence, the bare word of the appellant cannot be relied upon. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly repelled this contention of the appellant.
6. As regards the charge-sheets, dated 4-3-1984 and 11-3-1984, an ex parte domestic enquiry as held by the respondent Establishment was quite correct and justified as the management had complied with all mandatory requirements of Law to serve upon the appellant the said charge- sheets, letter intimating the date, day and timings of holding of the enquiry in a reasonable manner. The appellant had himself preferred not to participate in the same enquiry, for which he should blame himself. Nothing wrong has been done either by the Enquiry Officer in holding ex parte enquiry or by the respondent management, in acting upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
As regards to the third charge-sheet, dated 24-4-1984, the learned Labour Court, after examining and discussing the entire evidence on record and all other circumstances, had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant had committed acts of misconduct as enumerated in Standing Order 15(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and no exception can be taken on the report of the Enquiry Officer in respect of this charge-sheet, dated 24-4-1984, Mr. Shafi Muhammadi, the learned Advocate for the appellant had nothing fresh to attack the impugned order, what he had submitted before the learned Labour Court. I, therefore, hold that the findings of the learned Labour Court on this charge also, was correct and cannot be interfered with.
7. Mr. Shafi Muhammadi, the learned Advocate for the appellant has also failed to prove that the General Manager of the respondent Establishment was not Notified Factory Manager under the Factories Act, to sign or issue charge-sheets or orders dismissing the services of the appellant. It is an admitted fact that on record that Mr. Shamshad Ahmad was the General Manager of the respondent's Establishment and was not answerable to any person except the owner of the Establishment. Thus, Mr. Shafi Muhammadi, the learned Advocate for the appellant also has no legs to stand on this issue also and in view of this position, I would hold that the charge-sheets, in question, were issued by the proper authority and the order of dismissal of the appellant was signed by the competent person.
8. For the reasons, stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. This appeal is, dismissed accordingly.
M.Y.H./900/Lb.