By an order dated 4-10-1994, Mehar Muhammad Altaf Hussain, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha dismissed the grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on 9-3-1993, by Liaqat Ali, against the Municipal Corporation, Sargodha, and the Commissioner, Sargodha Division. He has preferred the present appeal, assailing validity and operativeness of the aforesaid order.
2. Liaqat Ali got employment with the Municipal Corporation, Sargodha, on 27-4-1985, as water- carrier, and served later as Naib-Qasid, as also as Baildar. He was absent from duty on 1-3-1990, owing to his illness, as was pleaded by him. He was allegedly not permitted to resume duty thereafter and was served with a charge-sheet on 27-5-1991. He was dismissed from service on 8- 7-1991. He claims to have served upon the employer a grievance notice, but he has not furnished a copy thereof, nor given its date. The postal receipts and the acknowledgement receipts tendered in that behalf, however, indicate on 16-2-1993 as the date of issuance of such notices to the Municipal Corporation, as also the Commissioner, Sargodha, and 17/18-2-1993 as the date of service of notices. The date of dismissal being 8-7-1991, the grievance notice followed by the grievance petition, having emanated in early 1993, must be taken to be hopelessly the-barred; and it has rightly been so held by the learned lower Court. It is to be noted that no application for condonation of delay had been submitted with the grievance petition,
3. On merits also, the petitioner before the Labour Court had no case. By tendering in evidence certificates, Exhs.P-7 to 9, Liaqat Ali has endeavoured to establish that he had been overtaken by a disease and remained under treatment of different doctors from 25-2-1990 onwards, till 12-6-1993, when, as certified as per document Exh.P-10, he was declared to be fit for resumption of duty, standing no longer in need of any medical treatment or bed rest. Earlier he had been advised complete bed rest, initially for a year, with effect from 25-3-1990, and subsequently for 1-1/4 years, with effect from 26-3-1991 to 10-6-1992, as certified by one Dr. Ehsan Ullah, Professor of Surgery, Allama Iqbal Medical College, and Visiting Surgeon, Services Hospital, Lahore. Doctors, in our country, and probably everywhere in the world, have been performing miracles; and it is so well- known that it is no problem to obtain certificate of any kind from medical practitioners, by being paid a few hundred rupees. Liaqat Ali belongs to Sargodha. And, as per certificates a forecited, he has been getting medical treatment at Lahore, or has been obtaining certificates from doctors at Lahore. If he was hospitalised, he should have produced in evidence hospital record in that behalf; and if he could undertake arduous, journey from Sargodha to Lahore, it is not understandable as to how was he unable to move about and had to remain confined to bed at his home place, Sargodha. Well, if he could travel from Sargodha to Lahore, and back, he would also pay visits to his office, to tell his superiors that he was actually ailing. He has, while appearing as his own witness, as P.W. 1, deposed that of and on he had been coming to his office for doing his duty, but he was not allowed to do so. It would then be intriguing as to how this was possible when he had been advised complete bed rest from 25-3-1990 to 10-6-1992, for a period exceeding to years, by a Medical Specialist. One is also at a loss to understand as to how could the employer be so hard on him this the, when, on earlier occasions, as indicated by the documents Exhs.R-1 to 9, he had leniently and rather indulgently been dealt with. It seems that he was very fond of leave and used to remain generally absent from duty. He had availed of four months leave from 1-1l-1989 to 28-2-1990, for carrying out necessary repairs to his allegedly dilapidated house. Exh.R-8 shows that he had, on a previous occasion also, availed of leave for a period- of about three months, with effect from 1-6- 1989 to 21-9-1989. He had been suspended/ousted from service, but he managed to secure an order of his reinstatement, by approaching the Deputy Mayor, who had no competence in the matter, and the order was, therefore, reversed by the Mayor. In the application, Exh. R-9, he said that he had suffered a mental break-down. This claim did not have in its support any medical certificate and actually on a subsequent date ex post facto sanction of leave was accorded, vide order dated 23-9-1989. That means that he had remained absent from duty, without leave, for that long period, and had been very 'kind' to the Corporation in making re-appearance, one fine morning on 3-9-1989. Leave was granted and his reinstatement in service was ordered with effect from 25-9-1989, vide order issued by the Administrative Officer of the Municipal Corporation (Exh.R- 8). Still before, from 1-12-1988 to 28-2-1989 for a period of full three months, he had availed of another spell of leave, as per Exh.R-7, on the pretext of repairing a house that had fallen down. The same house, it may be borne in mind, was again going to fall down, according to the official, who applied for four months leave, about a year afterwards (1-11-1989 to 28-2-1990), although he must have repaired his house, by remaining on leave for three months from 1-12-1988 to 28-2-1989, as he had applied for that leave for the said purpose. Documents Exhs.R-1 and 2 furnish proof of the fact that after availing of long spells of leave, Liaqat Ali would turn-up for a day or to in his office and again disappear and his superior officers had reported on 5-3-1990 and 18-8-1990 that he had again been absent for a period of about six months and his performance had been absolutely unsatisfactory and his conduct in service wholly objectionable. This was treated to be wilful absence from duty and it was observed that he was a habitual absentee and was not taking any interest in his work. He was, therefore, placed under suspension. Document Exh.R-6 furnishes a similar indication. He was reinstated with effect from 25-9-1989 and was asked to report for duty in the Company Bagh. He came to the place only once, on 1-10-1989, and remained absent till 8-10- 1989. His conduct afterwards was consistently and contumaciously offensive, as also rebellious, as discussed above.
4. He was charge-sheeted on 27-5-1991, copy of the charge-sheet being Exh.R-16. He had been suspended on 5-3-1990, as per Exhs.R-11 and R-15. Notices were issued to him, calling upon him to participate in the departmental inquiry initiated against him. Exhs.R-12 to R-14 show that he had been avoiding his service and appearance in the proceedings of inquiry. Service was ultimately effected through affixation. Inquiry proceeded ex parte against him; and as per report dated 8-7- 1991. Exh. R.10, he was found to be guilty and a recommendation was made that his services be dispensed with. On the same day, he was removed from service, vide orders E Exh.R-17.
5. From what has been said above, there is no escape from the conclusion that he was an absolutely unwilling and incorrigible, as also an extremely clever official; whose only object was to receive emoluments and who was least interested in doing any work. He had an aversion for duty which he seldom performed. The employer had no option but to terminate his services. He could avail of no legal provision and no equity for his retention in service. Even the Labour Laws, which were enacted and the Labour Courts, which were created, primarily for benefit of workmen, could not come to his rescue. It has rightly been remarked by the learned Court below in paras. 6 and 8 of the impugned judgment that on the one hand the official claimed having been advised complete bed rest, from 25-3-1990 to l 10-6-1992, as per medical certificates produced by him, and on the other hand, he claimed having also been coming to his office for performing duty, and had even secured reinstatement order on 18-8-1990 (as indicated by Exh.R-1), from which development it would follow that he was fit to perform duty and he no longer needed bed rest. Conversely it also C established that the doctor had been issuing certificates to support a fake and false claim of pretended illness and Liaqat Ali was so cunning a person that he would not attend to his duty, despite being physically and mentally healthy, but would justify his absence from duty by obtaining certificates about his fictitious ailment. I am not prepared to give any importance whatever to these certificates, having dishonestly and avariciously been issued, which merit outright rejection with the disdain the same deserve.
6. When the official was just not willing to associate himself with the process of inquiry, and was not available at his given address, the Authorities could not communicate to him the charge-sheet, as also the orders making appointment of the Enquiry Officer. The authorized officer and Enquiry Officer had no alternative but to proceed ex parte against the official, who could not, as such, take refuge behind his pretended unawareness about the proceedings of inquiry. The superiors seemed to have taken all possible precautions, and undertaken all efforts in that behalf, and then decided to dismiss him from service, as, by no standard of justice and fair play, Liaqat Ali justified his retention in service. Had he been allowed to continue, his stay would in all probability have undermined the general discipline in the office and encouraged work-shirkers and mischief- mongers, like him, which incidence would not have been conducive to promoting public interest.
7. I entirely agree with the learned Labour Court, and would uphold the impugned decision, whereby dismissal order of the appellant was kept intact and was not set aside. The appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed, with costs throughout.