DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 25-11-1988, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, II at Karachi, whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was admittedly workman employed by the respondent when on 7-10-1986, for certain acts of misconduct, he was charge-sheeted as under:- "It has been reported against you that on 5th October, 1986 at about 12 p.m. Mid-night you closed your (10) looms Nos. 192 to 201 and went out the department when your Shift Incharge Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed asked you the reason for closing down the ten (10) looms and sitting outside the department you got furious and not only refused to work but abused Shift Incharge Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed and threatened him of dire consequence if any report was lodged against you.
' The aforesaid act of yours is a misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
' You are hereby charge-sheeted and directed to show cause within 48 hours of the receipt thereof as to why disciplinary action against you be not taken."
' He replied to the charge-sheet which was not found satisfactory and domestic enquiry was ordered. The appellant did not participate in the enquiry on the ground that he had not received notice in time. The enquiry was held ex parte and appellant was found guilty of all the charges.
Consequently he was dismissed from service vide order, dated 2241-1986. Aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the respondents and then filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, learned representative for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The main question that requires consideration is whether the appellant received notices with regard to dates of enquiry within time. In grievance petition the appellant has stated that he did not receive the notice in time. Even with regard to notice, dated 13-11-1986 for holding enquiry on 18- 11-1986, he alleged that he received notice on 20-11-1986. However, in the cross-examination before the learned Labour Court, he has admitted that he had been receiving notices of enquiry in time.
With regard to last notice of enquiry dated 13-11-1986, he stated that he did not remember if the latter was received by him. He further alleged that he went to attend the enquiry proceedings on 18-11-1986, but he was not allowed to enter by the Chowkidar. His statement belies the stand taken by him in his grievance petition. Apart from his own word, that he was not allowed by the Chowkidar to attend enquiry proceedings on 18-11-1986 he has produced no other evidence in support. He has admitted that he did not make any complaint about his being disallowed to attend enquiry to the Labour Department. There is nothing on record to show that he sent such complaint in writing to the Enquiry Officer or to the Management. He was given number of opportunities and the enquiry was adjourned number of times to enable him and to give him opportunity to attend the enquiry but the appellant obviously failed to attend enquiry proceedings without any reason.
His contention that he was not allowed by the Chowkidar to attend the enquiry on 18-11-1986 cannot be believed as it contradicts his pleading in the grievance petition and is not supported by any evidence. His contention that he did not receive notices in time, is belied by his own admission that he went to attend the enquiry on 18-11-1986 which shows that he had the knowledge of the date of enquiry. It may be pointed out that there were only two witnesses in the enquiry, who were examined by the Enquiry Officer on 18-11-1986.
5. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jupiter Textile Mills Ltd. v. Hayat 1983 PLC 94 wherein it was held that where Enquiry Officer made every effort to induce accused to participate in the proceedings but accused refused to cross-examine witnesses and boycotted the proceedings no blame, in circumstances, could be attached either to Enquiry Officer or proceedings held ex parte.
6. In the case of Niaz Ali Nasri v. Mushtaq Textile Mills Ltd. 1980 PLC 610 this Tribunal held that where accused failed to attend enquiry wilfully he cannot subsequently complain against ex parte proceedings. In the case of Jubilee Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Bladar Khan and 8 others 1975 PLC 24 this Tribunal held that where accused failed to appear despite notice and repeated opportunities ex parte proceedings, in circumstances, did not violate principles of natural justice.
7. In the instant case also the appellant has failed to attend enquiry in spite of repeated opportunities and notices and therefore the order of dismissal cannot be set aside only on the ground that enquiry was held ex parte.
8. From the charge-sheet it would be clear that the main evidence against the appellant was of Imtiaz Ahmad, who was examined before the Enquiry Officer. He was supported by evidence of Muhammad Amin. The evidence of both these witnesses had gone unchallenged as they were not subjected to any cross-examination. They have fully implicated the appellant and by their evidence proved charges against him. The Enquiry Officer in his report has given valid grounds for believing them. Enquiry Officer Mr. Muhammad Yousuf has been examined by the learned Labour Court. Nothing has come on record to show that he was in any way prejudiced against the appellant or he acted unfairly or partially while conducting the enquiry.
9. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record and find no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Labour Court. I find no substance in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.