DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 15-4-1987, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted on 25-6-1985, for remaining absent from duty without permission for more than 10 days viz. From 13-6-1985 to 24-6- 1985. After enquiry, he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 21-7-1985. After serving the grievance notice upon the respondent the appellant filed grievance application.
4. The main contention of the appellant is that he was victimised because of trade union activities and furthermore that he used to come to attend the Mill but he was gate-stopped during the period for which he was charge-sheeted.
5. The appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that he was an ordinary member of the union. Even, if he was an office-bearer, he would not be immune to the provisions of the Standing Orders. If it is proved that he had remained absent without authority for more than 10 days it would amount to a misconduct as described in Standing Order 15(3)(e) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). If such misconduct is proved, the employer has got discretion to impose one of the punishments mentioned in Standing Order 15(2) which includes the dismissal.
6. It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not work in the Mills from 13-6-1985 to 24-6-1985. The respondents alleged that he had remained absent without intimation; whereas the appellant alleges that he was gate-stopped. There is nothing on record to show that he had made any protest or application against such gate-stoppage, either to the respondents or to the Labour Department. It is only his word that he was gate-stopped. In the enquiry before Officer, witnesses Ijaz Rasool and All Nazar have stated that the appellant did not attend the Mills from 13-6-1985 to 24-61985 without permission and they have not been cross-examined by the appellant. Wali Muhammad had also deposed the same fact. He is a Chowkidar of the main gate, and has stated that he did not gate-stop the appellant. He was also not cross-examined by the appellant. The appellant had given statement before the Enquiry Officer in which he and asserted that he was gate-stopped but admitted in the cross-examination that he had no documentary evidence to show that he was gate-stopped nor did he report to the Weaving Master to Labour Department. He has produced one Muhammad Aslam before the Enquiry Officer, who has stated that the appellant was gate-stopped on one day when he was present. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was gate-stopped on 13-7-1985 and further stated that he did not know that thereafter he was further gate-stopped. Syed Sarwar Zaman, witness of the respondents in Labour Court has not been suggested in cross-examination that the appellant was gate-stopped. One witness, Muhammad Taufiq was also examined by the appellant before Enquiry Officer who has stated that the appellant was gate-stopped on 13-6-1985, hut, he did not know whether he was also gate- stopped afterwards, as the appellant did not tell him afterwards. He has also stated in cross- examination that he did not know why the appellant was gate-stopped.
7. The evidence before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court fully show that the appellant remained absent from 10-6-1985 to 24-6-1985 without permission. His allegation that he was gate- stopped does not appear to be proved by any authentic evidence. There was no specific enmity of the respondents with him. According to him 400 workers were removed from service, hut, subsequently they were reinstated on the intervention of the Labour Department. There is no reason as to why the appellant only was gate-stopped, for which there is no specific reason on the record. Admittedly, he has signed the enquiry papers except the evidence of his own witness Muhammad Taufiq. He has admitted in cross-examination that the witnesses were examined in presence of his co-worker, Anwar, who has also not been examined by the appellant to show any misconduct or bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, Mr. Masood Shaikh has been examined and nothing has been proved from him to show that he had acted in any illegal or prejudiced manner.
8. As pointed above, the appellant did not cross-examine the witnesses who deposed against him before the Enquiry Officer. He also admitted his signatures on document, Exh.R-3 under which he has closed his side. The learned Labour Court has given cogent and valid grounds for disbelieving the appellant and for dismissing his grievance application. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.