DECISION ' This is an appeal against order of learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad dated 2-4-1991, whereby the grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. NA.
Talpur, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The appellant was admittedly workman working with the respondents. He was allotted 'D' Type Quarter No, 7 from the accommodation reserved for married workers vide order, dated 13-4-1989 and he was asked to bring his family within 30 days. The allotment order is produced as Exh. 'C'.
However, vide Exh. D, he was asked to vacate the Quarter. His allotment was cancelled because he made false statement that he was married, though he was not married and that he had not brought his family. He was issued several notices to vacate the Quarter but he refused to comply with the orders. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted vide show-cause notice, dated 6-12-1989 for above misconduct under Standing Order 15(3), (a)(b) and (g). In the domestic enquiry he was found guilty and was served with termination order, dated 31-3-1990. Being aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the respondents and then filed grievance petition.
4. It is not disputed that the appellant was allotted a Quarter meant for familied/married workers, that the appellant was not married and that he did not vacate the Quarter in spite of several notices and orders.
5. The main contention of the appellant is that he was, as per allotment order Exh. 'C' allotted family Quarter and 'family' does not necessarily mean `wife' but family also included other members viz. 'mother', 'sisters' etc. Technically family can be considered to include other family members besides a wife but in what context word 'family' is used has to be gathered from the relevant rules or law.
6. The respondents have produced Exh. R/1 which are 'Minutes of Meeting with regard to Quarters.' It is an agreement entered into by the respondents and the C.BA. The Appendix attached to this Agreement provides for the procedure and distribution of the married and single accommodation.
Rule 'F' of para. 1 of this Appendix provides that 'a widower who has children below the age of 18 will be considered as married officer for the purpose of accommodation'. Para. 3 deals with allotment of Married Accommodation to Workers. Para. 4(a) provides 'any person needing family accommodation will apply for it and his seniority in the Waiting List will count from the date of his application. Para. (f) of Rule 4 provides that 'application of a person not married, will not be entertained for married accommodation.' In context of these rules framed under the Agreement between the respondents and the C.BA. Word 'family quarter' is synonymous with married accommodation. These rules clearly lay down that worker who is not married will not be eligible for married accommodation.
7. The main contention of the appellant is that in the application for allotment, he had clearly shown that he was not married and because his application was not produced by the respondents, therefore adverse inference could be drawn against them. One application Annexure A/F had been produced on which there is a note of R.W. Muhammad Sohrab, Chief Engineer, Fauji Sugar Mills that the applicant was not married therefore Quarter could not be allotted to him. This application is dated 10-4-1988 whereas allotment vide Exh. 'C' was made after one year viz. 13-4- 1989. Naturally this allotment order must be in pursuance of some other application which the respondents claim to have been misplaced. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted, that in the second application the appellant had shown that he was not married and that he had shown that he would bring his family consisting of mother, still, as per rules, he could not be allotted the married quarter. Such allotment being against the rules could be cancelled by the concerned authority. However, it looks unlikely that having once rejected the application of the appellant for married quarter on the ground that he was unmarried, the allotment to him could have been made of a married quarter, if he had shown himself to be unmarried. Be that as it may the authority could not be deprived of its right to cancel the allotment made in violation of rules, framed under the agreement with the C.BA.
8. The next contention of the appellant is that enquiry that was held against him was illegal in the sense that it was held without notice to him. In the cross-examination the appellant had admitted, that enquiry notice was issued to him. He was delivered letter about enquiry on 23-12-1989 by the Enquiry Officer, but he did not appear on 23-12-1989 but sent application to the Enquiry Officer on 21-12-1989 for adjournment. He also admits that on 24-12-1989 he appeared before the Enquiry Officer and had given him application. He denied that he was served with notice on 4-1-1990, but he refused to accept the same. From his admission it appears that initial notice about enquiry was served upon him but enquiry was adjourned at his request. It was, therefore incumbent upon him to find out fresh date when enquiry was to be held. The Enquiry Officer Mr. Javaid Rafiq has stated in cross-examination that enquiry was fixed on 6-1-1990. He denied suggestion that no letter was sent to the applicant. He stated that it was adjourned to 8-1-1990 because appellant did not appear. He stated that no separate letter was issued for 8-1-1990 or 9-1-1990. R.W. Abdul Hameed, a Clerk of the respondent had stated that on 4-1-1990 Enquiry Officer asked him to serve letter dated 4-1-1990 on Mr. Riaz Mustafa, but appellant refused to accept it.
9. From the evidence on record as well as admission of the appellant, it would be clear, that the appellant did have notice of some dates of hearings. Appellant did appear before Enquiry Officer on these dates and sought adjournment. The last letter intimating him the date of enquiry was issued on 4-1-1990, but he refused to accept the same. Thus it cannot be said that the enquiry was held without notice or that enquiry was illegal because appellant himself deliberately avoided to attend enquiry or receive notice.
10. Mr. NA. Talpur relied upon the case of Bananas Khan v. Kohi-e-Noor Textile Mills Ltd. 1985 PLC 833 wherein learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab held that 'allotment of quarter to workman within mill area is a licence which could be revoked at any time or its terms can be altered. Disobedience of such order by workman was misconduct.
11. In the case of Muhammad Shakil v. Star Textile Mills 1983 PLC 383 this Tribunal upheld order of Labour Court dismissing grievance application of the workman holding that he was rightly dismissed from service after proper domestic enquiry on account of misconduct in refusing to vacate the Quarter allotted to him.
Apart from the fact that as pointed out that after service of initial notice of enquiry and after appearing before the Enquiry Officer on some dates of hearing, it was duty of the workman to fmd the next date of hearing, the charge remains admitted that the appellant did not vacate the premises when he was asked to vacate the premises, which he was not entitled to be allotted being an unmarried worker.
12. In view of the above discussions I find no merit in this appeal which, accordingly, dismissed.