DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application for re- instatement under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The circumstances in which this appeal arises, briefly stated, are as follows.
2. The petitioner was working as a Chowkidar with the respondents since October, 1977. It is alleged that though he was on duty for twelve hours every day, yet he was not being paid any overtime and other benefits available to him under the law by way of bonus and annual leave etc. He had occasionally remonstrated about the unfair deal he was getting from their hands and that was not to their liking. It is said when on 18-9-1990 he reported for duty he was restrained from doing so, and even his salary for the months of August and September, 1990 had remained unpaid. He had, therefore, sent a grievance notice on 7-10-1990 and as the respondents in their reply had asked him to resume his duty, he had gone to them on 17-10-1990. All that happened however was that he was made to wait for a few hours and still not allowed to work. He was, therefore, constrained to file the petition.
3. The written reply narrates an altogether different story. According to it he had proceeded on leave without pay from 28-6-1990 for 2-1/2 months ending on 17-9-1990. He had returned on or about 17-8-1990 and tried to. Resume his work but was not allowed to do so as his substitute had been promised employment up to 17-9-1990. He did not report on 18-9-1990 when his leave had - ended, and instead sent the grievance notice. However, better service prevailed after he had received the reply to the notice inviting him to resume duty on 18-9-1990 and he did resume work on 19-9-1990. He had also received his salary from 19-10-1990 to 31-10-1990. However, he absconded from 6-11-1990 without any intimation. Apprised of this from the Security Officer, the respondent issued a charge-sheet, dated 24-11-1990 calling upon him to explain his unauthorised absence for more than ten days. However; no reply was received and a domestic enquiry was ordered. The appellant in spite of notices through registered cover and also by means of a telegram did not turn up on the due date or even on the adjourned date with the result that the proceedings were held ex parte and his services came to be terminated on 23-1-1991. The petition, therefore, was not maintainable as it was premature. The other allegations also came to be denied.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Hamid Ahmed, Executive Director, Zahid Hassan, Deputy Manager, and Ali Zar Khan, Security Officer appealed on behalf of the respondents. .
5. The Labour Court found that the petition was premature, because when the grievance notice was given the domestic enquiry was still. Pending against him. It was also found that he had been served and knew about the pending enquiry and later on dismissal and did not challenge the same. It, therefore, dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
6. The appellant even in his affidavit-in-evidence persisted with the stand adopted by him in the petition but in cross-examination admitted that he had proceeded on leave for 2-1/2 months commencing from 28-6-1990 and that when he had reported before the due .Date he was directed to come after completing the period of leave sanctioned to him. He was confronted with his duty joining report but he did not admit his signature thereon. He also denied that he had worked from 18-10-1990 up to 5-11-1990 or that he had received the salary for the month of October, 1990. He was confronted with the wage sheet for the month of October but disclaimed his signature thereon. He also denied that he had received any enquiry letter-or show-cause notice or telegram. The address on which the letters were sent to him was admitted to be correct ones. One of these was received by one Fazal-e-Rabi, but he professed not to know him. All the postal receipts have been put on the record. The presumption. Therefore, will be that he was duly served and chose to boycott the proceedings to his own peril.
7. The proceedings taken up by the appellant on the face of it were pre--mature because there was no termination of service at that time and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony as furnished by the respondents. No fault can otherwise be found with the dismissal order.
8. There is no merit in this appeal. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss the appeal.