DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellants factory against an impugned order, dated 5-4-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to be a permanent workman in the appellants factory to have been employed as a Fitter and was issued a show cause for an alleged charge of habitual absence from duty in the months of October and November, 1985. The respondent further claimed that though he had submitted a satisfactory reply which was not found satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted against him in which the charge was not established, yet, he was dismissed from service. The respondent claimed that being aggrieved, he had sent his grievance notice followed by the present grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
3. The appellant factory resisted the petition on the ground that legally the grievance petition was not maintainable and that the respondent was habitual of remaining absent without intimations, he was issued warnings at so many times, but, he did not mend himself and again in the months of October and November, 1985, he had remained absent without intimation, therefore, he was issued a show-cause notice and as his reply thereto was not found satisfactory, therefore, a lawful, proper and reasonable domestic enquiry was conducted against him in which he had fully participated and in view of the report of the enquiry officer, he was correctly dismissed from service. So, as per claim of the appellants factory he was not entitled to maintain his petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties led their respective 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. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellants factory and Mr. M.M. Jeelani, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments, submitted only by the appellants factory. At the very outset, I would observe here that from the impugned order itself it is admitted position that the respondent was in habit of taking leave on the ground of his alleged illness without disclosing the name of disease and at all times, such requests were not being granted. It is also an admitted fact that for the first time the respondent had disclosed that he was suffering from the serious disease of epilepsy, but, neither in his grievance notice nor in his grievance petition and even, not in his explanation to the show-cause notice, he ever disclosed the name of disease. On the other hand, the Doctor, namely, Dr. Khursheedi, whose medical certificate, he had submitted had himself deposed that the respondent was never his patient of the disease of epilepsy, therefore, the subsequent opinion of other Doctors in the present case, could not be relied upon and it was never the case of the respondent himself. Further, there is more significant and direct admission and or a confession on the part of the respondent on his guilt and misconduct for which he was charge-sheeted and there is also a straight and apology which has been tendered by the respondent under his own signatures. Therefore, in view of this direct legal position, Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellants factory has very rightly relied upon a latest Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 SCMR at page 1823, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court had observed as under :- "The plea that the departmental enquiry was defective in terms of the rules is hardly available to the petitioner, for, he had, on being granted second opportunity to show-cause against the report of the enquiry officer, who had found him guilty, admitted his guilt before the Director, Special Investigation Cell who had passed the order of his discharge. In view of petitioner's own admission of guilt to the charge leveled against him, it hardly lies in his mouth to plead that the departmental enquiry held against him in respect of the charges was defective."
' In view of this authority, I am of the opinion that the respondent has no case to be entitled to get any concession. Therefore, the learned Labour Court was not correct in passing the impugned order which is accordingly set aside. On the other hand, Mr. M. M. Jeelani, the learned Advocate for the respondent workman could not submit anything cogent in support of his contention that the respondent was innocent so, he was illegally removed from the employment. In support of his case, Mr. Mohammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellants factory has very convincingly and correctly placed his reliance on the cases, reported as 1980 PLC (SC) at page 984; 1982 PLC 798 at page 800; 1980 PLC at page 981; and the latest decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No, KAR69/87, decided on 23-11-1987. In view of this factual, legal position and other circumstances of the case, I would hold that the respondent was rightly dismissed from his service on the charge of misconduct therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court must be set aside.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The result would be that the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, would also stand dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.