' This is an appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the decision dated 24-8-1998, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court No,3 at Karachi whereby he was pleased to dismiss the Application No,7 of 1997 under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
1969.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr. Ashraf Rizvi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted, firstly that the dismissal order, signed by Iqbal, was illegal and of no effect inasmuch as he was not a notified Manager of the factory. Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani, learned counsel for the respondent referred to Exh.CW/1 (page-267 of R&P), which is a letter dated 6-12-1993 addressed to the Chief Inspector of Factories, by the management, intimating about the appointment of Mr. M. Iqbal as notified Manager of the factory, annexing form 'A;, giving the details, (Exh.CW/2 page-269 of R&P). He also referred to Exh.CW/3 (page-275), which is a letter dated 18-2-1998, issued by Assistant Director Labour; West Division, whereby the management was informed that the change of factory Manager Mr. M. Iqbal Ahmed was accepted and brought on the record/register of this office w,e,f, 6-12-1993. He also referred to the evidence of one M. Zahoor Khan, Assistant Director Labour (Exh.CW/5, page-297), who deposed that.
"I see a letter dated 18-2-1998 Exh.CW/5 and say that it was issued by me and it bears my signatures."
' In cross to him by Mr. Ashraf Rizvi, he denied the suggestion that the document Exh.CW/5 is a forged document.
4. In the face of this evidence. I am clear in my mind that the dismissal letter of the appellant was issued by Mr. Iqbal, as a notified Manager of the Factory and it cannot be termed as illegal.
5. Mr. Ashraf Rizvi next submitted that the appellant was dismissed without any enquiry. Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani, learned counsel for the respondent, referred to a number of documents, placed on record, regarding enquiry held by one Mr. Saleem, the Labour Officer of the factory. The equiry was held on differnet dates viz; 22-10-1996, 24-10-1996 and 28-10-1996 against the charge-sheet- dated 4-10-1996, issued by the management (page-31), addressed to the appellant and three others. It seems beneficial to re-produce the charge-sheet as under:--- "Subect: Charge Sheet.
' It has been reported against you that on 3-10-1996, at about 8-00 a.m. You all instigated the other workers to strike work, with the result, all the workers of "A" shift and General Shift resorted to illegal strike alongwith you all from 8-00 a.m. To 11-30 a.m.
' You all took leading part and raised slogan against the Management and threatened the management that you all would not allow to shift the Friday weekly holiday to Sunday.
' You all also not only threatened the Supervisors but also used abusive language.
' The aforesaid acts of yours is a misconduct under section 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
' You all are hereby charge-sheeted and directed to show cause within 48 hours, of the receipt of this charge-sheet as to why disciplinary action against you be not taken."
6. A perusal of proceedings of the enquiry shows that the appellant was duly notified of the date, but he, in fact, boycotted the proceedings and left the enquiry room without cross-examining the witness. In this respect, reference was made to the cros-examination of the appellant (pages-195- 197), wherein it has been admitted by him that.
' I see the enquiry letter filed alongwith the reply statement dated 24-10-1996 which is Annexure R/3/A filed alongwith the reply statement and it bears my signature. It is correct that I had not moved any application against the E/Officer but I moved the same after the enquiry was complete.
It is correct that the said document complaint produced by me alongwith the petition Annexure 'C' is not sealed or signed by any authority or officer of having received the same which include the management of the labour department. I have no receipt in that regard. Again says that those receipts are with my lawyer and they are not filed by me alongwith the petition..................................................................... "
' I have made application to the company that the report and the enquiry proceedings were already got prepared and, therefore, they were one sided but I have not made such complaint either to the Court or to the Labour Department. Again says that I had not given in writing but I have verbally informed about the same. It is correct that I had left the proceeding and went out at the time the enquiry was being conducted on 22-10-1996. It is correct that the management had again sent me another letter making me to participate in the enquiry. It is correct that on 12(elc) October, 1996 I was again present but walked out when they tried to obtain my signatures forcibly. It is correct that thereafter I have not sent any letter against the said one sided enquiry to any officer or to the labour Court or labour department including the management with regard to the forcibly signature they wanted to obtain from me........................................
7. The above extracts from the statement of the appellant leave no room for doubt that simple opportunities were given to him to be present in the enquiry. Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani relied on a number of authorities, which are as under:---
1. Jubilee Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Bladar Khan and 8 others (1975 PLC 24),
2. Jupiter Textile Mills Ltd. v. Hayat (1983 PLC 94), 3.. Syed Niaz Ali Ansari. v. Mushtaq Textile Mills Ltd. Hyderabad (1980 PLC 610),
4. Fazal Hakeem. v. Messrs Elite Textile Mills Ltd. (1982 PLC 591),
5. Messrs Amin Fabrics Ltd. v. Muhammad Akhter and another (1988 PLC 377), and
6. General Manager, Bizvil Spinners Ltd. v. Tariq Habib (1990 PLC 378).
8. In the first named case, it was held by the first Chairman of W.P. Tribunal Mr. Justice (Retd.)
Inamullah Khan as under:--- "7. The Management has been careful to repeat the process for hearing when the workmen did not turn up on the first date of hearing. The workmen did not turn up on the next date of hearing by the Enquiry Officer. In these circumstances when the workmen were avoiding to receive the charge- sheet or the intimation of the date of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had no option but to hold die enquiry in the absence of the workmen. If the persons are notified to appear and they fail to appear after repeated opportunities are given, the proceedings have to be conducted in their absence and in such case it would not be a violation of the principle of natural justice. In this connection a reference may be made to in the case of Bakchi (P.N.) & Co. (Private) Ltd (1959) 1 LLJ and the case of Supreme Court of IndiaLakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (1959) 1 LLJ 17 at page 24. It was observed ' if full and free opportunity was given to the respondents to present themselves at the enquiry and defend themselves, it could not be said that the enquiry was anything but fair'. At any rate, the workmen cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own willful act to avoid service of the charge-sheets or the date of enquiry,. Ex parte proceeding is not any new concept of law. If the Court finds that the party concerned, against whom certain proceedings have been initiated, avoids to receive notice, it has no other option, but to proceed ex parte. I would hold in the circumstances already mentioned, that the ex parte proceeding was not in violation of the principle of natural justice."
' In the second named case, it was observed by Mr. Justice (Rtd) Z.A. Charm. Ex-Chairman of this Tribunal that:- "......However, when a question was put to him by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent is said to have walked out from the enquiry proceedings and boycotted the same. From the above conduct of the respondent, it is clear that he was bent upon sabotaging the enquiry proceedings or at least not participating in the same. The Enquiry Officer seems to have made every effort to induce the respondent to participate in the enquiry proceedings but his efforts were not successful. No blame, therefore, can be attached either to the Enquiry Officer or the proceedings conducted by him."
' In the third named case, it was, inter alia, observed by the Ex-Chairman of this Tribunal that:-- ' No doubt the enquiry proceedings were held ex parte but that was on account of the fault of the appellant himself. Admittedly, he had received a charge-sheet to which he had given a reply. He was also served with a second show-cause notice. Since the appellant himself failed to attend the enquiry though he was served with the notice of the enquiry, he cannot now complain that the domestic enquiry was held ex parte."
' In the fourth named case, it was observed by this Tribunal that: ".......As the misconduct of the appellant was fully established in the domestic enquiry against the appellant of which he had due notice, the failure of the appellant to participate in the enquiry does not vitiate the enquiry and on the contrary suggests that the appellant did not even had the courage to face the enquiry. I, accordingly, find no merit in this appeal and would, therefore, dismiss the same in limine."
' In the fifth-named case, it was observed by this Tribunal that.
"Both of them were properly issued charge-sheets by the competent authorities and both of them were dismissed from service by an authorised person. They had themselves avoided to participate in a fair and impartial domestic enquiry for which they should themselves suffer, but, not at the cost of the appellants management."
' In the last cited case, it has been inter alia, observed by Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab that.
"..Since the respondent without any just cause boycotted the enquiry, the plea that he did not cross-examine the witnesses and did not produce any defence, cannot benefit him. He himself is responsible for not availing the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and producing defence."
9. From the evidence quoted and the authorities cited, it is apparent that the appellant was given due opportunity, at least three times, by the Enquiry Officer which were deliberately not availed of by the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the principles of natural justice has been violated, or any prejudice has been caused to the appellant. In any case he should himself thank his stars for his own acts and omissions.
10. Mr. Ashraf Rizvi also submitted that complaint was allegedly drafted by Mr. Saleem, the Enquiry Officer, and as such, his action, as Enquiry Officer, was not proper, Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani referred to the statement of Mr. Saleem, wherein it was clearly stated by him that on the day of incident, he had not attended the factory. This averment has been supported by P.W. Muhammadd Rafiq, who happened at the relevant time, to be the President of the Union, that the Enquiry Officer Mr. Saleem had not attended the factory on that day. The plea, therefore, falls flat.
11. Mr. Rizvi lastly submitted that the enquiry was held by Iqbal, the notified Manager, Mr. Faruq A.
Ghani, submitted that there was some typing mistake inasmuch as instead of the name of Saleem, Iqbal was typed and submitted that it was re-typed as Saleem.
12. In result, the appeal is dismissed.