1. Applicant was employed as Tester in the respondent mill from 22-2-1985. On 2-8-1985 when he went for duty commencing from 11 a.m. To 7 a.m., he was refused the same. On 5-8-1985 he was given charge-sheet, dated 3-8-1985 which was duly replied by him on 7-8-1985. However, he was refused duty every day and so he submitted an application, dated 8-8-1985 which was never replied. On 18-8-1985 he submitted an application to the Labour Officer (Factories) Hyderabad but still with no result. However, when he went to the factory as per the advice of Labour Officer, he was given a letter of enquiry to be conducted by one Abdul Latif. He had no confidence in him and so he asked for his change by his application, dated 24-8-1985. He was given five suspension letters on 22-8-1985 showing his suspension from 3-8-1985 to 22-8-1985. In reply to his application, he was given a letter, dated 24-8-1985 for appearing before another Enquiry Officer on 25-8-1985. Since the time for enquiry was short he asked for the extension thereof but his application was refused to be received and was orally intimated about the intimation of future date of enquiry. Accordingly, he sent an application on 25-8-1985 but he was given a dismissal letter on 31-8-1985. He accordingly sent an application; dated 5-9-1985 asking for the copies of the proceedings but the same were refused by letter, dated 16-9-1985. Grievance notice, dated 24-9-1985 was then served and then instituted the present petition on 15-10-1985 for his re-instatement with back benefits.
2. The applicant alone examined himself in support of his case, while on behalf of the respondent, Manager Abdul Ghani, was tendered in evidence. After evidence, I have heard Mr. Bashir Ahmed, Representative for the applicant, and Mr. A. Ghani Khan, Advocate for the respondent. I have also considered the material on record.
3. The first submission of Mr. Bashir is that the suspension letters were given only on 22-8-1985 and so such suspension is wholly illegal. The respondent denied to have handed over five suspension letters at a time. These suspension letters have been produced by the applicant himself and so the burden was on him to prove that these letters were handed over to him on one and the same date.
4. He led no such evidence and so the submission of Mr. Bashir in this respect has no substance and so is repelled.
5. The next submission of Mr. Bashir is that if the applicant had assaulted the Head Jobber, he must have sustained some injury but the same was not visible. No report was also lodged with the police for such an assault. Accordingly, in his view, this is a concocted affair. I have gone through the charge-sheet and I do not find any allegation to the effect that the applicant had caused any injury. If any person boats the other or grapples with him, it is not necessary that the victim should have a visible injury. Moreover, in such cases within the factory premises, I do not think report to the police was required particularly when this incident was duly taken note of by the management.
6. This submission is thus equally devoid of any substance.
7. The third and most important submission canvassed before me on behalf of the applicant is that as per the evidence before the Enquiry Officer no mistake has been established. According to Mr. Bashir there is a glaring contrast in the statements of each witnesses. He referred the statement of Buland Ali and submits that according to him the incident took place on 1-8-1985 whereas witness Sada Bux stated that on 1-8-1985 the applicant had closed his machines at 7 a.m. On 1-8-1985 though the duty of the applicant was over by that time. Abdul (nadir Helper gave yet another statement to the effect that at about 6-50 a.m. He saw applicant holding Buland Ali. I have read these statements repeatedly and I do not find any contradiction whatsoever, a3uland Ali has stated that the applicant had left the duty in between 51 and 6i a. m. Without any permission and when he was asked as to why the machine was closed, he abused the witness and also caught hold of his colar etc. Supporting witness Sada Box has also said the same thing as he himself did not witoyess this incident but he was informed by Buland Ail at about 7 a.m. Abdul Qadir however, separated both at about 6-30 a.m. And so it cannot be pleaded that there is any contradiction in the evidence of witnesses.
8. Admittedly the applicant was not only informed about the enquiry but the Enquiry Officer was also changed by the management at the behest of the applicant and which proves the honest intentions of the management. The last enquiry letter was delivered to the applicant on 22-8-1985 and so it cannot be pleaded that 3 days time of enquiry was short. In any case, admittedly the applicant sent application by registered post for extension of time on 25-8-1985 and the same was delivered to the management on 3-9-1985, after the dismissal order. Accordingly it cannot be urged that the applicant was not afforded any opportunity of defence. The change as levelled against him and which also was fully established, constituted a serious misconduct and so the impugned dismissal order does not require any interference by this Court.