' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal filed by the complainant Ameer Ahmad is directed against the order dated 11-6-1998 passed by the then Chairman of this Commission dismissing the appellant's complaint.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 53 read with section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 against the present respondents alleging therein that he was employed as Chowkidar in NESPAK and was an active Member of the Employees' Union NESPAK. A dispute arose between the two factions of the said union as a result of which, a new union was registered under the name of Workers' Union NESPAK which the appellant joined and started taking active part in its activities. Kifayatullah Khan, President of Employees' Union who was in league with the Management and was very influential, instigated the respondents to dispense with the services of the appellant. The respondents on the instigation of Kifayatullah Khan served a charge-sheet on the appellant on 1-9-1993 on the basis of false allegations. The appellant submitted reply thereto whereafter respondent No,2, passed orders for holding of an enquiry and the Enquiry Officer under the influence of the respondents gave no opportunity to the appellant to produce the defence witnesses and held him guilty. Thereafter a show-cause notice was given to him and ultimately by order dated 23-1-1994 he was dismissed from service. It was further alleged in the complaint that though the appellant was dismissed from service, his dismissal was described as termination "with mala fide intention and ulterior motives in order to circumvent the provision of law". It was also alleged by the appellant that his dismissal/termination was the result of his trade union activities and as such it amounted to unfair labour practice.
3. It appears that during the course of hearing both the parties filed affidavit-in-evidence pursuant to the directions of the then Chairman of the Commission seized of the complaint. Both the parties are also stated to have agreed not to cross-examine each other.
4. The then learned Chairman after perusal of the documents appended with the complaint and the affidavits sworn by both the parties found that The complainant was issued a charge- sheet/show-cause notice on 1-9-1993 on the allegations that on August 27, 1993 at about 06-00 hours while handing over the charge as Security Guard, he committed physical violence to Mr. Hadi Hussain, Guard Grade-1, and attacked him with knife resulting in injuries to him and after committing the offence he ran away from office premises and remained absent from duty. The complainant submitted a reply thereto and levelled counter-allegations against Hadi Hussain. An inquiry was conducted into the said charge-sheet wherein the complainant participated. There is nothing on record to show that during cross-examination he put any question to Hadi Hussain regarding the counter-allegations levelled in the reply to the charge. The Inquiry Officer found the complainant guilty of the alleged charges. A second show-cause notice was thereafter issued to the complainant and vide order dated 23-1-1994, the services of the complainant were dismissed on the basis of alleged misconduct by the management. This order was conveyed by respondent No,1 for and on behalf of the NESPAK Ltd. There is no evidence on record to support the version of the complainant that the charge framed against him was the result of his trade union activities or that he was victimized by the management which constituted unfair labour practice. On the contrary, it is established from the documents on record that the complainant was proceeded against for attacking his colleague with knife. There is no material on record to proceed against the respondents for committing unfair labour practice". The learned Chairman also took note of the fact that although the appellant was dismissed on 23-1-1994, he filed the complaint on 10-3-1996 which fact, it was observed, could not be ignored. With these findings, the complaint was held to be without any merit and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondents who has appeared on his own, though no notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents as the appeal is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has made a grievance that the complaint was dismissed without recording any evidence. The grievance made is not well-based. As noted above, both the parties have filed their affidavits-in-evidence and they had agreed not to cross- examine the witnesses/deponents. When confronted with this position, learned counsel for the appellant did not press his grievance any further. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not been able to controvert the findings recorded in the impugned order that the appellant was dismissed/terminated on the allegation that he subjected his colleague Hadi Hussain to physical violence, caused him injuries with knife and thereafter ran away from the office premises and remained absent from duty. It is not denied that a departmental enquiry was held into these allegations in which the appellant participated and the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge. In the circumstances, the learned Chairman was right in holding that the appellant was proceeded against for attacking his colleague with knife.
7. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that soon after his dismissal, the appellant served a grievance notice on the management and thereafter filed a grievance petition in the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. On 13-2-1994 and then filed a complaint before the Commission after more than 2 years. Learned counsel has contended that neither in the enquiry proceedings held departmentally, nor in the grievance notice and the grievance petition, the appellant took the plea that his dismissal from service was managed by Kifayatullah Khan, the President of Employees Union which case he subsequently set up in the complaint as an afterthought. Copy of the grievance petition filed by the appellant before the Labour Court has been produced before us which we have perused. In para.8 of this petition, it has been simply alleged by the appellant that he has been victimized on account of his lawful trade union activities and political ideas. Learned counsel for the respondents is, therefore, right in contending that the case of unfair labour practice as set up in the complaint was an afterthought.
Viewed in the context of overall circumstances brought on the record, no legitimate exception can be taken to the findings of the learned Chairman that there is no evidence on the record to support the version of the appellant that the charge against him was the result of his trade union activities or that he was victimised by the management on that account. It may pertinently be observed that the only evidence produced by the appellant in support of his complaint was his affidavit-in- evidence which was countered/rebutted by the affidavit-inevidence sworn by Muhammad Akram respondent. The appellant has produced no other evidence in support of his version.
8. Apart from what has been stated above, the delay of more than two years in filing the criminal complaint without offering any explanation for this inordinate delay casts serious doubts on the version of unfair labour practice set up in the complaint. The then learned Chairman rightly took into consideration the factum of delay while dismissing the complaint.
' For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dismissing the appellant's complaint proceeded on correct premises, legal as also factual, and it does not call for any interference. The appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.