DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the respondent on the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The respondent was working as a Weaver in the mill of the appellant since 24th May, 1971. It is said that on 31st December, 1974 some workers created some trouble in the mill and, therefore, the workers including the respondent were forced to close down the machines on 2nd January, 1975 the respondent was charge-sheeted that on 31st December, 1974 he had resorted to an illegal strike alongwith other workers from 5-20 p. m. as well as instigated other workers of the leaving Department to go on strike. The appellant asked the workers to call off the strike but the respon-- dent refused to obey the orders.
3. The respondent submitted a reply on 6th January, 1975 denying the allegations. He pleaded that some workers including Mir Nawab Shah and Alam Shah created some trouble and they compelled other workers to stop work and in case of refusal some action was threatened by them.
Consequen--tly, all the: workers were forced to stop the work.
4. Since the reply was not found satisfactory an inquiry was ordered. A letter dated 6th January, 1975 was sent to the respondent to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 8th January. 1975 at 11-00 a. m. but the respondent did not appear: He, however, appeared on 9th January, 1975 when his statement was recorded. Some more witnesses were also examined on the same date and the inquiry was concluded. The respondent did not choose to examine any witness in defence. The Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the charge and, therefore, submitted his report on 11th January, 1975. A show-cause notice dated 16th January, 1975 was issued to the respondent The inquiry report was also, sent along with the notice. The respondent submitted a reply on 18th January. 1975 refuting the allegations and alleging that he was victimized on the ground that he was a representative of the Maz--door union which bad been registered. Subsequently, a dismissal order dated 20th January, 1975 was issued. This was served upon the respondent.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the respondent served a grievance notice and thereafter made an application to the Labour Court under section 25-A. I. R. O. for the redress of the grievance.
6. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent was found guilty of misconduct after due inquiry and, therefore, he was dis--missed from service: The allegation of victimization was denied.
7. Both the parties tendered evidence. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court entertained the view that the inquiry was farce and the respondent had been victimized. He gave elaborate reasons to support his view.
8. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the argument I am unable to uphold the order passed by the Labour Court. The first ground which was taken by the learned Labour court was that the letter dated 6 1975 for holding inquiry was delivered to the respondent on 9th January, 1975 and not on 8th January, 1975 and soon after the delivery of the January, letter the inquiry was held. He refuted the contention of the appellant the respondent did not appear on 8th January, 1975 and on his request the inquiry was conducted on 9th January, 1975. On the basis of this he proceeded to observe that it was manifest that the Management had no intention to give any opportunity to the respondent to rebut the charge residing Officer completely ignored the cross-examina--tion of the respondent. In his cross-examination, he clearly admitted that he was served inquiry letter for inquiry on 6th February, 1975. Not only this, but he further admitted that it was correct that he did not go for the inquiry on 8th January, 1975 but went on 9th January, 1975 and the inquiry was held in his presence. Apart from this clear admission in the cross-examination, no allegation of any kind was made either in the grievence petition dated 3rd April, 1975 served upon the appellant after dismissal, but even no such allega--tion was made in the application which was made to the Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R O. There was also no allegation in any of these two documents that he was not allowed any opportunity to defend himself. There is no allegation that he had requested for time or adjournment of the inquiry to enable him to arrange for his defence. So the presumption of the learned Presiding Officer that the Management had no intention to give any opportunity to the respondent to rebut the charges is unwarranted and not justified.
9. The second ground which was taken by the learned Presiding Officer was that the respondent had requested for calling the General Secretary of the Union in the inquiry proceedings and his request was not allowed because written application was not given. So, according to the learned Presiding Officer, the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 were violated. Even in this respect also I repeat my argument that the respondent made no such grievance either in the grievance petition or in the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O. It was not claimed that any prejudice was caused by refusal to call the General Secretary. The record on the contrary shows that the General Secretary of the Union was present and be bad actually signed the inquiry proceedings. In order to meet this, it was urged before me that there were three Unions and the person who had signed the inquiry proceedings was the General Secretary of the rival Union. There seems to be no substance in the allegation that there were three Unions in existence. Although, the respondent claimed that there were three Unions but when he was asked to same them he stated that he did not know their names. This is rather very strange.
10. The learned Presiding Officer proceeded to take exception to the examination of Mir Nawab and Mir Alam Shah daring the inquiry proceedings on the ground that, according to the respondent, they were the persons who had instigated the workers to stop the work. I must say, it was within theth discretion of the Management to examine any person as witness as it was desired. Indeed, the respondent had made allegations against these two per--sons but their evidence was relied upon by the Inquiry Officer and it was not for the Labour Court to reject that evidence.
11. It was further observed by the learned Presiding Officer that admit--tedly, the respondent was first examined before any prosecution evidence was recorded. Of course, this is true but the respondent made no grievance of it either in the grievance petition or in the application made under section 25-A: I. R. O. It could be at the most a mere irregularity and not an illegality which would bit the inquiry. The respondent never expressed his desire to give further evidence after the witnesses produced by the Management were examined. Furthermore, the inquiry proceedings show that two more persons, Shaukat and Hoda, were also examined. This fact is also mentioned in the very impugned order. 1n the face of this, it is not understood how the learned Presiding Officer proceeded to say that only the workers against whom the respondent had made allegations were examined and no other workers were produced.
12. According to the Inquiry proceedings the respondent declined to cross-examine Messrs Shauket and Hoda on the ground that they belonged to the Management. The learned Presiding Officer also took exception to this and held the view that this was a false statement made by the Manage-- ment as why he should refuse to cross-examine these two witnesses when he had cross-examined Messrs Mir Nawab and Mir Alam Shah. It is rather said that the learned Presiding Officer completely ignored the two important documents, i.e. grievance notice and the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O. as already pointed out.
13. The learned Presiding Officer also commented upon the statement of the Management that the respondent signed his own statement but refused to sign the statements of other witnesses.
According to him, no other evidence was recorded except the statement of the respondent and, therefore, remaining statements could not bear the signatures of the respondent. I would repeat that no allegation was made either in the grievance petition or in the applica--tion made under section 25-A, I. R. O. that the statements of the remaining witnesses were not recorded and were subsequently manipulated. On the contrary, there is an admission of the respondent in the cross- examination that the inquiry was held in his presence. He, while admitting that statements of Mir Alam and Mir Nawab ware recorded in his presence, denied that the statements of Shouket Usman and Hoda were recorded in his presence. It is not understood why the Management would not examine the other witnesses who were, apparently, supporting the allegations made against the respondent. The denial of the respondent in the circumstances of the present case cannot be accented. The allegation of the respondent was also refuted by the very inquiry report in which it was clearly mentioned that all these persons were examined as witnesses. Yet, the respondent did not challenge this report either in the grievance petition or in the application made under section 25-A. I. R. O. The various allegations made by the respondent are clearly after--thought and attempt was made to develop a different case during the trial in the Labour Court. The inquiry proceedings were signed by the General Secretary of the Union which was the 'Collective Bargaining Agent'. I have already observed that it is not proved that he was a General Secretary of a rival Union.
14. Reliance was also placed upon the report dated 1st January, 1973 made by the Assistant Director Labour (Conciliation), Hyderabad, indicating that the workers staged illegal strike due to instigation of Messrs Shier Ali, Sayfulmalook, Kusta Gal and other, and it was observed by the learned Presiding Officer that the name of the respondent was not mentioned and, therefore, it could be presumed that he had taken no part in the instigation. I am unable to accept this argument for the simple reason that the word 'others' was also used and this would include not only respondent but several other persons whose names were also not mentioned in the letter. So the mere absence of the name of the respondent in the letter did not indicate that he was not responsible for the instigation.
Lastly, the learned Presiding Officer referred to the resignation of other workers and observed that the Management wanted to get rid of the respondent and, therefore, he was dismissed from service. I am unable to support this observation for the simple reason that the respondent failed to prove victimization. No evidence was led by. him. Beyond his bare word there is no evidence.
15. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. The application made under section 25-A, stands dis--missed.