DECISION ' Appellant Shah Gul Amber has preferred this appeal from the order, dated 23rd December, 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No,IV Karachi whereby his grievance petition was dismissed. The appellant's case as stated in his said petition was that he was employed in the Respondents' Mills as permanent workman (Tenter) since 1985. On 4-11-1993 while performing his duties he fell ill when he requested the Labour Officer for issuance of B-2 Form of Social Security which he did. On the following day i,e, 5-11-1993 when he reported for duty he was not allowed to enter the Mills. He complained to the Joint Director Labour East Division but with no result. Thereafter several (sic) by the appellant yet the Respondent Management remained absent. For the first time on 22-11-1993, the Respondent Management in their letter addressed to the Assistant Director Labour, East Division disclosed that appellant had been charge sheeted on 20-11-1993. The allegations contained in the charge-sheet were that the appellant unauthorisedly remained absent from duty from 4-11-1993 to 29-11-1993, rendering himself liable for misconduct. After the charge-sheets issued on 20-11-1993 and 29-11-1993 were served on the appellant he submitted his reply to the said charge-sheets. The appellant was required to appear in the domestic enquiry on 23-12-1993 vide letter dated 12-12-1993 but when he went to attend the enquiry, he was not allowed to enter the gate by the person on duty there. This was brought to the notice of the Respondents vide application dated 30-12-1993. Again on 4-1-1994 the appellant was required to appear before ,Enquiry Officer but the date of enquiry was changed to 12-1-1994. This time too the appellant was sent back by the watchman on the gate telling him that he had been dismissed from service.
Thereafter dismissal order was received by the appellant whereupon he sent 'grievance notice dated 13-4-1994 protesting against his illegal dismissal from service. It was duly replied by the Management of the Respondents Mill vide their reply dated 27th April, 1994. The grievance having remained unredressed the appellant filed grievance petition on 26-5-1994.
2. In Reply Statement the Management of the Respondents Mill have categorically denied the appellant's allegations adding further that the appellant was not an office-bearer of the Workers Union in the Respondents' Establishment and therefore, the question of his holding talks with the officials of the Respondents in respect of any matter did not arise. Their plea was that the appellant unauthorisedly stopped reporting for duty continuously from 4-11-1993 whereupon he was charge- sheeted with allegations that he had authorisedly remained absent for more than 10 days. Two charge-sheets one on 20-11-1993 and another on 29-11-1993 were issued to the appellant and Mr. Abdul Majid Labour. Officer was appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct the Enquiry on 23-12-1993. The appellant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 12-12-1993. As the appellant did not turn up to attend the enquiry on 23-12-1993 the Enquiry Officer instead of proceeding ex parte gave him another opportunity and fixed the enquiry on 4-1-1994 and the appellant was advised about this date by letter, dated 26-12-1993. He did appear before the Enquiry Officer on 4-1-1994 but this time he requested for assistance by one Gul Rehman and leader of Dawood Cotton Mills Union. The Enquiry Officer did not accede to his such request as Gul Rehman was not an employee of Respondents' Mills. Thereupon once again Enquiry Officer postponed the enquiry on verbal request of the appellant to enable him to arrange for a co-worker. Thereafter the enquiry was fixed for 12-1- 1994 and the appellant was informed vide letter dated 4-1-1994. Somehow the appellant did not attend the enquiry nor sent any intimation in this connection. The Enquiry Officer was accordingly contained to proceed ex parte in the matter and submitted his report finding the appellant guilty of misconduct. On basis of his report appellant was dismissed from service vide letter dated 1-2-1994.
3. The appellant Shah Gul Amber beside filing his Affidavit-inEvidence has also filed Affidavit-in- Evidence of his witness Gul Rehman. The respondents Management filed Affidavit-in-Evidence of Messrs Abdul Majid Labour Officer of the Mills and Karim Yousuf Factory Manager. I have perused these Affidavits-in-Evidence and have also heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both parties. The points of determination that were struck by the learned Labour Court were firstly whether the appellant had unauthorisedly remained absent from duty from 4-11-1993 to 29-11-1993 and whether the said charge of unauthorised absence was established in a fair and impartial domestic enquiry. No doubt the appellant has denied the allegations that he had remained absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 days. According to his version he reported for his duty almost daily but he was gate stopped and was not allowed to enter the factory premises for doing his duty.
However in his cross-examination he has admitted that he had produced charge-sheet dated 20th November, 1990 alongwith his grievance petition and his explanation of the charge-sheet. He has also admitted that again on 29th November, 1993 he was issued further charge-sheet for which too he had submitted his explanation. He does not deny that these Charge. Sheets were with regard to his absence from duty. Though in the first instance he denied that he had not attended enquiry proceedings fixed on 23-12-1993 but in the same breath he admitted that he had gone to the Respondents Mills yet he was not allowed to enter it. Strangely enough he did not know the name of the Chowkidar who did not allow him to enter the Mills or had stopped him at the main gate. As such he has failed to substantiate his plea that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry because excepting his own solitary word, there is no other evidence. He did not even examine the Chowkidar who did not allow him to enter the Mills. In my opinion he had deliberately suppressed the name of the Chowkidar because otherwise he would have to produce him in evidence. It cannot be believed that the appellant was working in the Mills but he did not know the name of the Chowkidar doing duty at the main gate of the Mills. His admission that he had no personal enmity with anybody was significant because in absence of, any such illwill or animosity with anyone of the management it was most unlikely that he would be targetted and he was made to leave the service of Respondents' Mills on that account. Admittedly he had been in the employment of the Management since 1985 which only shows that he was continuing in service without any friction with the Management. Even otherwise he being a poor workman, the Management had no obvious reason to make him target by terminating his services without any justification. It is clear from the Respondents' Reply Statement as well as Affidavit-in-Evidence filed on their behalf that even though appellant was given ample opportunity to participate in the domestic enquiry yet he did not avail the same with the result that the Enquiry Officer had to conclude the enquiry ex parte. In this connection I agree with the findings of the Lower Court. As pointed out earlier that even the appellant himself had proved by his admission in course of his cross-examination that he was not only served with charge-sheets but he was also informed from time to time about the various dates on which the enquiry was fixed. Despite that if he did not take proper steps to participate in the enquiry he had to thank himself. I therefore, did not see how enquiry held against appellant was not fair or suffered from any defect.
4. According to the report of the Enquiry Officer since the allegation of unauthorised absence of the appellant for more than 10 days was proved he was obviously liable for punishment of misconduct vide section 15 subsection 3(e) of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. As against this there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that appellant's services were terminated for the reason other than reason of unauthorised absence for more than 10 days. The appellant had made a faint effort by taking a plea that he had demanded certain benefits namely 5 shares in profit, increase in salary of workers and double overtime which had annoyed the Management and hence the termination of his services. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be believed that the appellant who was neither office-bearer of the union nor in any way leader of the workmen and consequently he did not have any particular statute could make such demands from the Management and therefore, the question of his victimization on that account would not arise.
In view of the above discussion while upholding the decision of the Labour Court the appeal is dismissed.