DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance for re-instatement and the benefits.
2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent and was working as a Booking Clerk. He was said to have committed several irregularities and acts amounting to misconduct within the mischief of Standing Order 15 of Standing Orders Ordinance. He was, therefore, issued a number of show-cause notices and charge sheets within a period of four months. The present case relates to the two charge-sheets dated 21st October, 1974 served upon the appellant with regard to certain allega--tions. The appellant did not submit any explanation, although, he was required to do so within a period of one week, i.e. By 28th October, 1974. He was, therefore, informed by letter dated 29th October, 1974 that Mr. F. P. Sethna was appointed as Inquiry Officer and he should appear before him on 2nd November, 1974 at 10 a. m. In the office of the Godeon Limited, Marston Road, Karachi. In spite of the receipt of the letter the appellant did not appear and, therefore, another letter dated 2nd November, 1974 was issued to him for his appearance before the Inquiry Officer on 6th November, 1974 with a note that if he failed to appear inquiry would be held ex parse.
3. In pursuance of the notice dated 2nd November, 1974 the appellant appeared before the: Inquiry Officer on 6th November, 1974 and made a statement admitting the allegations made in both the charge-sheets. This statement was signed by him.
4. On the basis of the inquiry the appellant was found guilty of the charges. Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 20th November, 1974. A second show-cause notice dated 28th November, 1974 was served upon the appellant. He did not submit any explanation. He was dismissed from service on 3rd January, 1975.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal he sent a grievance notice dated 9th January, 1975 to the respondent. The notice was received on 14th January, 1975. Since his representation was not accepted he made an application to the Labour Court under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, on 6th February, 1975.
6. The application was resisted by the respondent. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessm ent of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the, application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. I will confine myself to the grounds which have been raised before me.
7. The first ground which was taken is that name and designation of the officer who issued the charge-sheets and signed the various letters was not disclosed, and, therefore, it was not possible to know whether that person had the authority to act on behalf of the respondent. There is no force in this contention for the simple reason that the charge-sheets and the letters were signed by Mr. Hoshang M. Kanda Wala who was the Managing Director of the Cinema. The appellant was in the employment of the cinema since long time and he was fully aware oaf the person who had signed the charge-sheets and the, letters and he was conversant with his handwriting and signature. I have also compared the various signatures available on record and it is very plain that all the signatures are of the same Managing Director. So the mere fact that the mime and designation was not stated in the charge-sheets hardly affects the merits of the case invalidating the proceedings which had been taken against the appellant.
8. The second ground which was alleged is that the appellant was punished for the offences which were different from the offences shown in the charge sheets. This is rather a misstatement of facts.
Here it may be noted that two charge-sheets dated 21st October, 1974 were served upon the appellant and both these charge-sheets appeared at pages 31 and 35, respectively. It is rather unfortunate that the learned counsel with a view to miselad referred to only charge-sheet appearing at page 31 and completely ignored the other. I have gore through both the charge- sheets as well as the inquiry report and there can be no manner of doubt that the allegation by the appellant is not sustainable. The appellant was punished for the charges which were clearly stated in the two charge-sheets. Apart from this, it is an admitted position that the appellant had admitted the allegations when he appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 6th November, 1974 and this statement bears his signature which has not been denied.
9. The third ground which was taken is that the Inquiry Officer was appointed and named in the charge-sheet without affording any opportunity to the appellant to submit any explanation. This is again a mis--statement of facts. In neither of the charge-sheets dated 21st October 1974 the Inquiry Officer was named. It was by letter dated 29th October, 1974 that the appellant was informed that he had not submitted his explanation to the charge-sheets and, therefore, he was directed to present himself before the Inquiry Officer Mr. F. P. Sethna on 2nd November, 1974 as already shown in the statement of facts. Despite the notice the appellant did not appear and, `therefore, another letter dated 2nd November, 1974 was issued for the appearance before the Inquiry Officer on 6th November, 1974. In the face of these documents it is not understood how the learned counsel pretended to argue that proper opportunity was not allowed to the appellant to submit his explanation before the appointment of the Inquiry Officer.
10. The fourth ground which was taken is that the Inquiry Officer was related to the Managing Director. That may be so, but the appellant had admitted the allegations when he appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 6th November, 1974. So the question of relationship is hardly of any consequence. Apart from this, it is discretionary with the Management to appoint anybody as the Inquiry Officer.
11. Lastly, it was pointed out that a charge-sheet was served upon the appellant even after the report of Inquiry Officer. Indeed, this is true as there is a charge-sheet dated 2nd December, 1974, but, this is a different charge relating to the misconduct of 18th November, 1974. Consequently, the service of the second charge-sheet can hardly be taken note of special when the action against the appellant was taken with regard to the two charge-sheets dated 20th October, 1974.
12. In the result I maintain the order passed by the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.