The appeal captioned above challenges 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 raised slogans against the management and alongwith others entered carpet weaving khata and threatened the weaving master to murder him. This is alleged to have been done by the appellant in order to coerce the management to accept illegal demands. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet and issued an inquiry notice, but he did not participate in the inquiry, whereupon ex parte inquiry was held, which culminated in his removal from service.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had given a telegram for changing the inquiry officer but his request was not accepted. He has not said what were the reasons for which the alleged telegram was sent for changing the Inquiry Officer. No certified copy of the telegram issued by the Telegram Department is on the record. Likewise, no receipt in token of the fact that any telegram was in reality sent was produced. A copy of the lengthy telegram is on the record but it is not a certified copy nor was it tendered in evidence.
Since no documentary evidence was brought in this respect, the respondent had no opportunity to meet it. The case of the respondent is that no request by means of any application or telegram was received for changing the inquiry officer. The appellant did appear before the inquiry officer and in his presence the statements of three witnesses were recorded but thereafter he walked out.
In these circumstances, there was no other alternative for the inquiry officer but to proceed ex parte against him. In the very dismissal order, copy of which is Exh. R.5, it is mentioned that the appellant party attended the inquiry and thereafter walked out, therefore, the inquiry was held ex parte against him. The witnesses examined during the inquiry supported the allegations made in the charge-sheet. Since the appellant did not participate in the inquiry upto the last and did not bring any evidence in defence, the inquiry officer and the dismissing authority were justified in accepting the prosecution evidence produced during the inquiry. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in refusing to set aside the order of the dismissal from service.
4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.