DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The appellant was working as Accountant with the respondent since 1966. He committed some acts of misconduct and, therefore, he was charge-sheeted on 17-1041975. Again there was some misconduct and he was charge-sheeted on 13-11-1975. The appellant did not make any reply to any of the charge-sheets. Enquiry was ordered and the appellant was found guilty of the charges on the conclusion of the enquiry. Show-cause notice was issued to him. This was replied on 17-12- 1975. Subsequently, he was dismissed on 22nd December, 1975. After serving grievance notice the Labour Court was approached under section 25-A.
3. The application was resisted and it was stated that the appellant had committed acts of misconduct and, therefore, he was charge-sheeted, and after holding proper enquiry he was found guilty and dismissed from service in accordance with the law.
4. The learned Presiding Officer on the assessment of the evidence found it against the appellant and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this the present appeal had been filed.
5. The first ground taken by the appellant is that there had been some misstatements with regard to the dates made by the Presiding Officer. It was pointed out that in the order it was shown that the first charge-sheet was served on 15-1G-1975 and the second charge-sheet was served on 1-12- 1975 but in fact the first charge-sheet was served on 17-10-1975 and the second charge-sheet was served on 13-11-1975. It was also pointed out that it was mentioned in the order that one charge- sheet was served on 13-10-1975, although there was no such charge-sheet. In my view, there was a clerical error and nothing turns out on these variations. Indeed no charge-sheet was served on 13th October 1975 and it appears that instead of November, October was shown.
6. The second plea that was taken on behalf of the appellant is that the person who signed the reply statement was not examined in the Labour Court. This may be so but evidence was led and it was found sufficient for the purpose of the trial. So it was immaterial that the person who had signed the reply was not examined.
7. The third plea which was raised is that on 6-11-1975 and 1-12-19751 when the enquiry was held the statements of the appellant were not recorded by the Enquiry Officer. No such allegation was made in the application made under section 25-A. Even no such question was put to the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the respondent. This allegation was embodied for the first time in a document purported to be dated 2-7-1975 but this was not produced at the time of arguments before the Labour Court. No reliance can be placed upon this document.
8. It was next urged that the copies of the enquiry proceedings and report were not sent to the appellant and he was not given a chance for personal hearing. This statement also goes unsupported. Admittedly a second show-cause notice was given and a reply to it was sent by the appellant. In this reply no such allegation was made. This reply was made on 17th December, 1975.
Thus the allegation is an afterthought and cannot be relied upon.
9. Before I conclude I would like to point out that the conduct of the appellant was open to exception. Although he was charge-sheeted twice but he did not care to reply to any of the charge-sheets. Admittedly statements of the witnesses during the enquiry were recorded in his presence.