DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 31-3-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, 1 at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman working as Operator in the respondent establishment and was also President of Metal Containers Employees Union which was a C.BA. Union and that as the respondent establishment used to indulge in unfair labour practices and that his legitimate union activities were also not liked by it, particularly by one Mr. Sohail Ahmad Poonawala, therefore, under his coercion and pressure, he had resigned from the office of the President of the said union only to save his employment. The claim of the appellant was further that he fell sick on 14-4-1986 and was advised sick leave till 16-4- 1986 and when on 17-4-1986, he had resumed his duty, he was given charge-sheet allegedly on flimsy grounds only with an idea to victimize him. Further, that on 3-5-1986, he again fell seriously ill by falling down near the gate of the respondent establishment, so, he was referred to Sind Employee's Social Security Institution Hospital, Karachi, where he remained under treatment from 3-5-1986 to 4-5-1986 and therefrom, on 5-5-1986 he was transferred to Kulsoom Bai Valika Hospital, S.I.T.E. Karachi and had remained there under treatment till 12-5-1986 as indoor patient, but, in spite of this fact, he was dismissed from service on 7-5-1986 ignoring all the genuine medical certificates and the informations. Thus, being aggrieved he claimed to have sent his grievance notice followed by grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the grounds that the appellant had remained President of the C.B.A. Union only for four months and that due to his own accord, he had resigned from the said office and so the allegation of any victimization was not correct and that as he was charged with the fact that on 14-4-1986 at about 9.30 a.m., he had assaulted and attacked on Mr. Sohail Ahmad. Poonawala and had not only used abuse and filthy language against him, but, had also caused injuries on his face, therefore, a proper and lawful domestic enquiry was conducted against him resulting in his proper dismissal from services. It was also claimed by the respondent establishment that the plea of illness, taken by him was an afterthought so that to prove that being an office-bearer of the union, he was victimized. It was further claimed by the Respondent establishment that in the domestic enquiry, the appellant had fully participate and thereafter he was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, therefore, nothing wrong had been done against him. It was further the case of the respondent establishment that they had never received any medical certificate from S.E.S.S.I. Hospital Karachi and or any application for the grant of leave on the alleged medical ground. Therefore, the respondent establishment claimed that the appellant was thus not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments, submitted by both the parties. At the very outset, I would observe here that the applicant was charge-sheeted, an inquiry was conducted against him in which he had fully participated but prior to finalization of his case, the appellant got himself admitted in the SESSI Hospital. It is again an admitted position on behalf of the appellant that he had neither sent an intimation regarding his illness nor any application for the grant of leave to the respondent establishment. It is again an admitted position by the appellant in his cross-examination that he had sent his applications to the management through one, Mr. Sajid, but, he did not get acknowledgements from him. Mr. Sajid the witness of the appellant also admittedly failed to produce any acknowledgment of the intimations of the appellant submitted by him to the respondent establishment. After careful examination of the entire evidence on record and considering other circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant or his so-called witness had not sent a intimation to the respondent establishment regarding illness or the treatment, therefore, they must thank themselves for the latches. The appellant had deliberately failed to do so. Law does not help the indolent. I, therefore, find nothing wrong in the impugned order, which is well reasoned and quite correct. I would, therefore, maintain the same. The authorities relied upon by Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant namely, 1983 PLC at page 763; PLD 1979 Kar. At page 493; are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence, distinguishable. Mr. Mirz,a Mazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant could not add anything more in which he had already submitted before the learned Labour Court.
6. As regards Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment, I see that he has also added nothing more in his arguments which he had placed before the learned Labour Court.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.