' This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 20th December, 1975, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition made to that Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Petition, was dismissed hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court, as well as the impugned order.
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that appellant was charge-sheeted for absence from duty without any leave for more than 10 days. This is the admitted position of the parties that appellant was arrested by the Police on 6th May, 1975. He was bailed out on 12th May, 1975. He did not come to duty on 7th May, 1975 to 21st May, 1915. He produced a Medical Certificate from a practitioner. It was issued to him on 22nd May, 1975 and certificate is to the effect that he was suffering from Dysentery from 12th May, 1975 to 22nd May, 1975. This Certificate cannot said to be reliable as it was obtained on 22nd May, 1975. Enquiry was made against him. Appellant went on getting postponement and at last on 19th June, 1975, his appeal were before the Enquiry Officer but he declined to participate in the Enquiry. Two witnesses were examined in his absence on 21st June, 1975, and 23rd June, 1975, when he again made an application to the Enquiry Officer that he wanted to produce Mr. Basharat Ali, President of the Union as his Representative so his enquiry may be postponed. Management through a letter informed him that he should do so still 30th June, 1975, or otherwise be should come himself. On 1st July, 1975, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer, he was asked by him that witnesses examined behind his back could be called again for cross- examination if he wanted to cross-examine, but he refused and made his own statement.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to Exh. R. D. Wherein the Enquiry Officer has reported that statement of Mr. Gulzar Ahmed was being recorded when appellant appeared and refused to participate. A Photostat copy of statement of Mr. Gulzar Ahmed is attached to the file from which it appears that he got it recorded on 21st June, 1975, and not on 19th June, 1975, as has been reported by the Enquiry Officer so according to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has made the matter doubtful and benefits should go to the employees. Again when case was adjourned to 2nd June, 1975, no information was given to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this is regularity which goes to the root of the case of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has contented that Enquiry Officer might have written in his report that statement of Mr. Gulzar Ahmad was recorded on 19th June 1975, in fact it was not recorded, he was simply hearing the case of the prosecution when appellant came there and refused to participate in enquiry actually statement was recorded on 21st June, 1975, and there was no necessity to inform the appellant for that adjournment. He himself has refused to participate in the enquiry and in view of his refusal no prejudice was caused to the appellant. Enquiry Officer was liberal enough to call him again on 1st July, 1975, and re-opened the matter when appellant himself to refuse to cross examine the already examined witnesses.
6. I would agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that no prejudice was caused to the appellant. He himself refused to participate in the enquiry and therefore there was no need to give him notice of adjournment. In fact enquiry started on 21st June, 1975, after refusal of the appellant on 19th June, 1975. Appellant remained absent for more than 10 days. The period for which he remained in custody can be said to be beyond his control. He was released en 12th May, 1975, and he for the very first time came to the factory on 26th December, 1975, and the explanation to this absence is a Medical Certificate, which was issued to him on 22nd June, 1975, when according to the Doctor he was all right.
7. In that view of the matter I do not see any ground to interfere into the judgment of the Court below I therefore, maintained that judgment and dismiss the appeal.