The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 5-2-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.
2. The allegations, for which the appellant was removed from service, were that he collected workers and alongwith others raised slogans against the management and entering the carpet weaving khata threatened the weaving master to be murdered. According to the management, the appellant did so in order to harass and coerce the management to accept illegal demands.
3. The appellant was duly charge-sheeted and inquiry notice was sent to him vide postal receipt Exh. R-8 to appear in the inquiry to be held on 27-4-1985. The case of the appellant is that he had gone to the gate of factory but was not allowed to enter it. On the other hand the case of the respondent is that the appellant had come at the gate but when was called in to participate in the inquiry he said that he was waiting for his father and that he did not participate in the inquiry, which was, therefore, held ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a request was made for changing the inquiry officer and neither this request was accepted nor the appellant was allowed to participate in the inquiry. Since the plea is that the appellant had no confidence in the inquiry officer, the plea of the respondent that he did not participate in inquiry appears to be correct and the plea of the appellant that he was not allowed to enter the gate is not believable. No copy of any application or any other document has been brought on the record to show that actually the management was requested to change the inquiry officer or that the inquiry officer was given any such intimation or request not to hold the inquiry. Rather in his previous grievance petition, which was withdrawn with permission of the Court to bring fresh one, appellant had said that he had not participated in the inquiry since the President of the Union had told him that the inquiry officer was not acceptable and that he should not appear before the inquiry officer. Since no request was made to the management for changing the inquiry officer, the inquiry officer was justified in proceeding ex parte while the appellant did not participate in it. It has not been disclosed in the evidence what was the reason for which no confidence was being felt in the inquiry officer. In these circumstances, the inquiry officer was justified in holding ex parte inquiry. The evidence produced during the inquiry proved the allegations made against the appellant. Since he did not participate in the inquiry and did not produce any defence, there was no other alternative for the inquiry officer and the dismissing authority to accept the evidence of the witnesses examined during the inquiry.
5. However, this argument' of the learned counsel for the respondent has no force that the second grievance petition was time-barred. The order of dismissal Exh. P.3 is dated 30-4-1985. The grievance notice is Exh. P-4 but no postal receipt was brought on the record. According to the respondent, the grievance notice was received on 12-6-1985, which means that the appellant had lost about one month and 12 days, out of two months and 15 days during which the grievance petition could be filed. The previous grievance petition was presented on 3-7-1985. It was withdrawn on 16-4-1986 and fresh one was lodged on the same day. Under section 14 of the Limitation Act, the period spent during the proceedings which were not competent, is to be excluded. Since the appellant had yet one month and three days and the fresh petition was brought on the same day on which the previous one was withdrawn, the fresh petition was within time and was not time-barred. Even the previous petition was quite competent and did not suffer from any defect of improper presentation, because before the expiry of the period meant for presenting the grievance petition he had himself appeared before the learned lower Court to pursue the previous case.
6. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.