DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the respondent with full back benefits on his application made under section 25-A, I. R.
0.
2. The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 31st January, 1975. An explanation was submitted on 4th February, 1975. The inquiry was fixed for 8th February, 1975 but the respondent 'did not appear and, therefore, an ex parte inquiry was held. However, on 12th February, 1975 he made an application requesting a fresh inquiry. The request for fresh inquiry was not accepted but the respondent was permitted to cross- examine the witnesses who had already been examined. 18th February, 1975 was fixed for that purpose. There is also another letter dated 13th February, 1975 allowing the respondent to cross- examine the witnesses on 18th February, 1975 at 1-00 p. m. In spite of fresh opportunity having been allowed the respondent did not appear and, therefore, a second show-cause notice was Issued and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. Aggrieved by this, the respondent served a grievance notice and then approached the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the appellant was guilty of negligence and he failed to participate in the inquiry in spite of the opportunities having been allowed to him.
Consequently, he had no cause of grievance against the inquiry. It was also pleaded that the misconduct having been established he was rightly dismissed.
4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court allowed the application on the ground that proper opportunity was not allowed to the respondent to defend himself.
5. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am unable to support most of the findings of the Labour Court. It is untrue that proper opportunity was not allowed to the respondent to defend himself. In fact, he voluntarily remained absent and abstained from participating in the inquiry on one or the other false pretext. It was pleaded by him that he could not attend the inquiry on 8th February, 1975 as he was attending the Court of S.D.M , Thatta on that date, but this statement was belied by the certificate issued by the Magistrate; which shows that there was no hearing of the case on 8th February, 1975 and the challan in the Court was for the first time presented on 10th February, 1975. Although, this fact was conceded by the learned Presiding Officer but he proceeded to observe that since a fresh inquiry was ordered it was obligatory on the Management to have either re-examined the prosecution witnesses in presence of the applicant or to have supplied the copies of the statements already recorded in his absence. It seems clear that the learned Presiding Officer misdirected himself. No fresh inquiry was ordered but the respondent was simply permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and, therefore, the question of re-examination of the witnesses did not arise. So far as the question of supplying the copies of statements of the witnesses is concerned, the respondent had never made any such request and, therefore, no duty was cast upon the Management to have voluntarily supplied the statements.
6.
6. From the evidence on record it has also been established that the respondent was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and was duly intimated about the date and time for that purpose but the respondent remained absent. Indeed, he had pleaded that on 18th he appeared but was informed that the inquiry had already been over. There is no substance in this allegation. In para. 7 of the application made under section 25-A, I. R.
0. He had clearly stated that the show-cause notice dated 13th February, 1975 for his appearance on 18th February, 1975 was received at late hours and, therefore, he could not appear before the Inquiry Officer on the fixed date and time. This completely belies his statement that he had appeared late and was told that the inquiry had already been completed. It is also untrue that he had received the notice at late hours as pleaded in para. 7 of the application. The record shows that a show-cause notice or a letter, whichever may be called, was issued on 13th February, 1975 and was received by the respondent on 18th February, 1975 at 12-10 p. m. Directing him to appear on the same date at 1.00 p. m. This was treated to be the letter which was received late. However, the application which was made by the respondent himself on 17th February, 1975 was completely ignored. In this also the respondent was informed that the inquiry would held on 18th February, 1975 at 11.00 p. m. In the mills premises and this bears the signature of the respondent. So it cannot be said that the intimation about the inquiry to be held on 18th was received late after the inquiry hours and was the respondent could not participate in the inquiry. The Management was fully justified in closing the inquiry on 18th when the respondent did not appear and no sufficient cause had been shown for his absence. In fact, he made false statements and raised dishonest pleas.
7. Lastly, it was urged before me that the second show-cause notice was despatched on 27th February, 1975 while the dismissal letter was issued on 27th February, 1975 and, therefore, an illegality was committed. I am inclined to accept this contention. It has been admitted on behalf of the appellant that show-cause notice was despatched on 27th February, 1975, but it was pleaded that the dismissal letter, although, was dated 26th February, 1975 was despatched on 1st March, 1975. That may be so, but It is plain enough that the dismissal of the appellant was already decided and actually an order was passed before the service of the second show-IA cause notice.
8. On account of the aforesaid illegality I dismiss the appeal, but it is open to the Management to serve another show-cause notice with that report of the Inquiry Officer on the respondent and after service take such action as may be deemed fit in accordance with law.