DECISION These 6 appeals from the composite order of the Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad dismissing the petitions filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Arise in the following circumstances:- It was alleged by the petitioners that on the 26th of November, 1993 when the sweepers of the respondent mill were having their meals during the break, a police party had turned up and taken away a number of them to the police station. They have asked the others to follow them. However, after a few hours they were allowed to return to their homes. The next day when they reported for duty they were refused work. It went on to say that it was on the 10th of December that they had received show-cause notices as to why they should not be proceeded against for remaining absent for more than 10 days. This was replied too but still they were not being permitted to work for them. It was thereafter that they had sent grievance notices which had remained un-replied.
They had, therefore, filed petitions with the prayer that as they had been illegally removed from service a direction be issued to the respondent to reinstate them on their jobs. .
2. In the written reply it was stated that on 25-11-1990 at about 7 a.m. The petitioners had thrown feacal exereta in the office of the Personnel Manager and the Assistant Welfare Administrative Officer. As it had polluted Qura'nic Verses kept under the table glass, the petitioners had perpetrated an ad of sacrilege which had injured the feelings of all the sundry, including the union leaders who had disowned them for this fiendish act. It went on to say that they were charge- sheeted for the perpetration of this act on 26-11-1990 and as they did not submit any satisfactory reply to the charge-sheet, domestic enquiry was ordered and in the light of the findings they were dismisses from service.
3. By consent all the 7 petitions were consolidated and only Malik Masih had filed his affidavit on behalf of all the petitioners. Muhammad Younus Ghaznavi, President of the Board of Enquiry and Major (Retired) Javed Arsal appeared on behalf of the respondent.
4. The Labour Court found that in view of the enormity of the crime the petitioners had been dismissed from their service and since they had not challenged the dismissal order no relief could, be granted. Accordingly it dismissed the petition resulting in these appeals.
5. The contents of the petition were the same as in the grievance notice. These mention to show- cause notice for absence beyond 10 days only which had been replied too but does not make any reference about dismissal from service.
6. As against this the evidence on behalf of the respondent is that the sweepers had made certain demands and on the 24th of November, 1990 they had raised slogans against the management and on the morning thereafter had resorted to the throwing of the feacal exereta in 2 Offices. It is alleged that a wave of shock had spread among the mill workers and the appellants were removed from the membership of the union also. There was also a general demand for steps taken for their prosecution on the criminal side. The witnesses, testified that they had issued show-cause notices as to why proceedings should not be taken against them for misconduct, but in spite of service the appellants did not care to appear, with the result that the proceedings had been held ex parte and on the receipt of the report they had been dismissed from service.
7. Obviously the two versions tell totally different stories and it remains to see whether the version as put forward by the respondent finds some support from the appellants. If so, then the petition would not be.
8. The affidavit-in-evidence filed by Malik Masih admits that they had faced a criminal proceeding before the Mukhtiarkar. However, they were discharged therein. In the cross-examination he had even admitted that he had received the charge-sheet and it bore his signature. Other charge- sheets had also been produced, as given to the other petitioners and their signature and thumb- impressions were not denied. These charge-sheets, pertain to the misconduct referred to earlier.
So, it is not open to the appellants to say that they were not aware of the action that was being taken against them. It was also admitted by him that apart from the arrest by the police the management had also made an application to the S.D.M. Tando Muhammad Khan where they were called. After they were served with the charge-sheets and in the circumstances of the case it could not be urged that they were oblivious of the charge they had to meet if they chose to boycott the proceedings they must take the consequences.
9. The question before us is not the fairness or correctness of the dismissal order but of its existence, which in spite of due knowledge had remained undefended in the domestic enquiry and unchallenged before the Labour Court.
In the circumstances of the case no fault can be found with the impugned order. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeals.