decision This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The respondent was a permanent employee. He seas charge-sheeted on 31st January, 1975 for starting serious violence and dislocation of work in the Winding Department and assaulting co- workers. The respondent denied the allegations. An inquiry was held and witnesses were examined by both the sides. On the basis of the inquiry the Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the charge. A show-cause notices dated 3rd February 1975 was issued calling upon the respondent to show cause within 24 hours of receipt of the notice. On 19th February, 1975 dismissal order was passed.
3. It may be pointed out here that a few more workmen were also dismissed along with the appellant on the same allegations. A joint grievance notice was served through the Union by all the workers who were dismissed. No reply was sent by the Management and, therefore, an application under section 25-A, I. R. O. was made to the Labour Court.
4. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent was dismissed from service after proper inquiry.
5. The learned Labour Court allowed the application on two grounds. Firstly, h. held that the appellant had examined only two witnesses, Imam Bux and Madad Ali, before the Inquiry officer and since there was a fight between two rival groups and both these witnesses belonged to the opposite group, so they were interested persons and their evidence without independent corroboration could not be accepted. Thus according to the Labour Court the action taken was mala fide.
6. The second ground which was relied upon by the learned Labour Court was that the show-cause notice dated 13th February, 1975 was posted on 18th February, 1975 and the dismissal order was passed without waiting for the reply to the show-cause notice and a pre-determined dismissal order was passed.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me that the application which was made to the Labour Court was premature inasmuch as it was made before the expiry of the period prescribed for making the application after the service of the grievance notice. This plea was not taken in the memo of appeal and, therefore, I am unable to consider it and lA attach any weight to it.
8. It was next urged that the grievance petition was not in order as it was a joint application made by the Union on behalf of the workers who had been dismissed. This objection was also taken before the Labour Court and was rejected. I also find no force in this contention as section 25-A (10) clearly provides that workers having common grievance on common cause of action may make a joint application to the Labour Court. When a joint application to the Labour Court is permitted there is no reason to suppose that the Legislature did not permit a joint grievance notice.
9. Now I turn to the grounds taken by the Labour Court. The first ground is that the Management had examined two witnesses, Imam Bux and Madad Ali, before the Inquiry Officer and their evidence could not be accepted without corroboration. I must say that the learned Presiding Officer went beyond his power to assess the evidence. It was the function of the Inquiry Officer to appreciate the evidence and accept or reject it. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of the appreciation of evidence. Besides the learned Presiding Officer clearly ignored the fact that the third witness, Shamsuddin, was examined. There is nothing on record to show that he belonged to the rival group. Consequently, i am not inclined to agree with the Presiding Officer that the allegations made against the appellant were not established.
10. The second ground is that dismissal order was passed before the service of show-cause notice.
I entirely agree with this view. Although, the show-cause notice is dated 13th February, 1975 bat admittedly, it was despatched by post on 18th February, 1975 wherein the appellant was required to show cause within 24 hours. The dismissal passed on 19th February, 1975.
There is nothing on record to establish that the respondent was at all served with the show-cause notice. Even presuming the service of the notice on 18th February, 1975 the dismissal order passed on 19th February, 1975 was clearly bad as 24 hours were not allowed to elapse as required in the show-1 notice.
11. In result I dismiss the appeal but it is open to the appellant to issue a fresh show-cause notice with a report of the Inquiry Officer and take suitable action as may be deemed fit after the service of the notice.