' Applicant in his application under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969, has stated that he was a permanent workman of the opponent. It is alleged by the applicant that on 20-10-1987 he was charge-sheeted which was replied that it was false. He has also alleged that on 18-11-1987 he was called by the opponent and asked orally not to come on duty from 19-11-1987 but he went for duty on 19-11-1987 and was refused to be taken on duty without assigning any reason or giving notice in writing. The applicant therefore sent a letter dated 19-11-1987 to the opponent and the latter, on receipt of the said letter, issued enquiry letter fixing the date of enquiry on 3-12-1987. It is also alleged by the applicant that the opponent continued his illegal act of not taking him on duty as such he sent another letter dated 3-12-1987. However, enquiry was held against him in which his objections were not taken into consideration and the statements of witnesses were wrongly recorded on his own accord by the Enquiry Officer and as such he sent a letter dated 9-12-1987 to the opponent but it was neither replied nor he was taken on duty. According to the applicant on 12-12-1987 he sent a letter by which he demanded the enquiry proceedings but the opponent refused to do so and on 16-12-1987 the applicant was dismissed from service on the basis of illegal enquiry as stated above.
The applicant, therefore, after serving grievance notice dated 21-12-1987, has come to this Court.
2. The opponent in its reply statement has denied the allegations of the applicant and stated that the applicant un-authorized remained absent from duty from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987 in spite of the fact that the `Jagaiya' Saeed used to call the applicant on his house to come for work. It is further contended by the opponent that the applicant was served with charge-sheet dated 20-10- 1987, the reply of which was given by the applicant on 22-10-1987 which was considered as un- satisfactory and consequently domestic enquiry was ordered to be held against the applicant by the Enquiry Officer Mr. Abdul Ghani. It is further stated by the opponent that in an enquiry, in which the applicant was given proper opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses, producing his defence witnesses and facility of postponement, the applicant was hold to be guilty of misconduct for remaining absent from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987 and was consequently dismissed from service which is legal.
3. From the side of applicant he has himself filed the affidavit-in-evidence and was cross- examined by the other side and from the side of opponent the latter has filed the affidavit in evidence and was cross-examined by the other side. Both the parties have produced number of documents on the record. I have heard the Advocates of the parties and perused the record.
4. I find from the record that so many irrelevant questions were put to the parties and irrelevant documents produced, which have absolutely no bearing upon the case. For example the applicant has tried to establish that he made efforts to be taken on duty from 19-11-1987 but the opponent used to refuse, while the opponent has tried to establish that the applicant never approached for performing the duty from 19-11-1987, although in this case the crucial point is whether the applicant remained unauthorized absent from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987 for which he was charge-sheeted and in respect of which the enquiry was held. I am, therefore, not concerned with what happened after 20-10-1987 insofar as the applicant's efforts to perform the duty or opponent's refusal to take him on duty. In this context it may be mentioned here that it is admitted position that another charge-sheet was also served upon the applicant in which he was alleged to have remained absent after 20-10-1987 but subsequently no action was taken as on the first charge-sheet the applicant was dismissed from service. It is thus clear that whatever happened after 20-10-1987 is not the crux of this case.
5. Coming back to the absence of the applicant from 26-8-1987, it is worthwhile to make mention here that the applicant in his application under section 25-A has not said a single word as to whether he performed the duty on any day between 26-8-1987 and 20-10-1987 or what was reason of his absence. In other words the applicant, for the reasons, best known to him, has not put up his view point in respect of his alleged absence from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987 in his grievance petition, and has not stated specifically as to whether he had actually performed the duty or the factory remained closed or he was on leave or he was prevented by sufficient cause from performing the duty. In his affidavit in evidence also the applicant has not specifically stated as to whether he was present on the duty during the period from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987 or was on leave or the factory was closed or he was prevented by any other cause. In his grievance petition as well as in his affidavit in evidence he has stated only this much that the charge of his absence from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987 was wrong and whatever he had stated in his reply to the charge-sheet dated 22-10- 1987 is correct. The applicant in his reply to the charge-sheet at para No, 1 has stated that on 26-8- 1987 he went for duty but was returned without any notice and on 27-8-1987 he again went but, was not taken on duty and thereafter the curfew was imposed. Again from 12-9-1987 to 17-9-1987 he continuously went for duty but he was not taken by the opponent. It may be mentioned here that in spite of the fact that the applicant was not taken on duty from 26-8-1987 to 28-9-1987 for more than 1 month as per his version yet he did not send any letter or notice to the opponent although the record shows that when he was refused to be taken on duty on 18-11-1987 he sent a letter for duty on 19-11-1987 and thereafter on 2-12-1987, 9-12-1987 and 12-12-1987. If the applicant became so active as to write letters to the opponent for taking him on duty on 19-11-1987 and subsequently thereafter then why he did not become so active during the period from 26-8-1987 to 20-8-1987, when, according to him, he went for duty continuously but was refused to be taken on duty.
6. Much has been said from the side of applicant that on various dates the factory was closed for one reason or the other as per admission of the representative of the opponent in his cross- examination but even if those closures are counted and debited from the absence of the applicant then also there are so many absences of the applicant for which nothing has come at all. From the trend of cross-examination of the representative of the opponent it transpires that sometimes that factory used to remain closed for one reason or the other and sometimes it used to function but one thing is admitted that the applicant remained absent right from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987, and there could be no excuse for the applicant why he did not go for duty when the factory was functioning. If the applicant could come to know about closure of the factory, on some dates he could come to know about its function or on other dates provided he had actually gone to the factory. Because the factory was closed on 1-10-1987 to 3-10-1987 and 6-10-1987 for non- availability of the glass and from 8-10-1987 to 15-10-1987 the factory was closed for want of electricity, it does not mean that his absence on working days is co ironed. In the cross- examination of the representative of the opponent no question was put to him that the applicant had actually gone to the factory but was not taken on duty. In the reply to the charge-sheet which has been made justification and explanation of the charge-sheet referred in the grievance petition as well as the affidavit in evidence, it has not been said that he did not go to the factory because of the fact that there was no electricity in the factory on certain dates and due to non-availability of the glass on the other occasions. In other words the stand taken in the reply to the charge-sheet is that the applicant along with went to the factory during the period from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987 but was not taken on duty, but from the trend of cross-examination it appears that this stand was changed and instead the excuse and justification of the absence were tried to be found out from the facts of non-availability of Electricity or Glass. This plea therefore, becomes an after-thought and cannot be considered as excuse for his absence.
7. The other objection of the applicant is that the enquiry held against him was illegal and partial one. In this respect it has been alleged by the applicant in his grievance petition in para. No, 4 that Enquiry Officer wrongly recorded the statements of applicant and his witnesses while the statements of witnesses of the opponent were recorded according to his choice. Similarly in his letter dated 19-12-1987 which is referred in his grievance notice the applicant has alleged that the statement of his witness Muhammad Zada was not recorded properly. If it was really so then he should have given such application or raised objection in writing at that very time. It is important to point out that the enquiry papers produced on the record show that statements of witnesses from the side of opponent as well as from the side of applicant were signed by him. It is also noteworthy that several questions were put to Saeed Khan the witness of the opponent, by the applicant which were allowed by the Enquiry Officer. It is also noteworthy that some questions were put to other witness by same name viz. Muhammad Saeed and then a request was made for postponement of the enquiry in order to bring the helper which was also granted by the Enquiry Officer and that shows that the Enquiry Officer was not partial and had given sufficient opportunities to the applicant of cross-examining the witnesses as well as bringing helper. At the same time it must be taken into consideration that if the applicant could write on the statement of witness Saeed that postponement be given to him, he could also write that the statements of the witnesses were being recorded according to choice of Enquiry Officer. Similarly the witnesses of the applicant namely Muzaffar and Muhammad Zada were also examined by the applicant and their statements bear his signatures. If the applicant had marked the partiality of the Enquiry Officer then he should not have participated in the enquiry and should have refused to sign statements of the witnesses.
The other important factor is that the applicant has alleged that the statements of his witnesses were wrongly recorded. If that was really correct then he could have examined them in this Court so that these witnesses could state the true story before this Court and then it would have been proper for this Court to have appreciated that statements of the witnesses of the applicant were wrongly recorded. Except these allegations there is no other allegation about partiality of the Enquiry Officer and therefore I am unable to hold that the Enquiry Officer was partial.
8. Having come to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to establish that he was not absent from 26-8-1987 to 20-10-1987 or he was not taken on duty and the Enquiry Officer was partial, I think he has no merit in the grievance petition which is therefore rejected.
Petition rejected.