This is an application under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of my order dated 19th May 1969, whereby I dismissed the appeal of the applicant. The Appeal related to an order by the Industrial Court granting permission to the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad, to dismiss the applicant from service. The main ground on which the permission to dismiss the applicant from, service was sought was that he was absent from duty for more than 10 days.
2. In order to dispose of the submission of Mr. A. Majeed the learned Representative for the applicant, it would be necessary to give few facts. The District Manager made an application under section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance.
1959 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), on 26th December 1966, for permission to dismiss the applicant from service on the ground of wilful negligence in the performance of duty. This application was numbered as Application No. 2 of 1967. The District Manager made another application under section 30 of the repealed Ordinance, which numbered as 12 of 1967, for permission to dismiss the applicant from service on the ground that he was absent from duty for more than 10 days. Application No. 2 of 1967, was dismissed on 7th October 1968, while Application No. 12 of 1967, was granted on 10th February 1969. The appeal against the order dated 7th October 1968, was maintained by the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 17 January 1969. The appeal against the order dated 10th February 1969, was disposed ofas already mentioned, by this Court on 19th May 1969.
3. The main contention of Mr. Majeed, the learned Representative for the applicant, is that on the perusal of the evidence on behalf of the District Manager, led in Application No. 2 of 1967, wouldth disclose that the applicant was one leave from 31st May 1965 to 7th October 1965. In this connection, Mr. Majeed made a reference to the statements of Mr. Siddiqi, the Accountant, under whom the applicant was working, Mr. Badar Iqbal, the Office Superintendent of the applicant and the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Zaidi. Mr. Siddiqi and Mr. Badar Iqbal admitted that the applicant was on leave from 31st May 1965 to 7th October 1965. Mr. Zaidi, who was appointed the Enquiry Officer in the charge relating to wilful negligence in the performance of duties, also clearly came to the conclusion that the applicant was on leave from 31st May 1965 to 7th October 1965. In view of this admitted position that the applicant was on leave during the relevant period, Mr. Majeed submits that this Court may be pleased to review its order.
4. The provision of OrderXLVII, rule 1 of the Civil Proce--dure Code is very clear. It is not every order that can be reviewed. The circumstances under which an order can be reviewed are very clearly stated under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is the discovery of a new and important matter that entitles the party to apply for a review and further that the discovery of such important evidence should not have been in the knowledge of the party applying for review. In the present case, it was the evidence of Mr. Siddiqi, Mr. Badar Iqbal and theEnquiry Report was within the knowledge of the applicant. The only course open to the applicant was to have applied, in the first place, to the Industrial Court to bring the evidence of Mr. Siddiqi, Mr. Badar Iqbal and that of Mr. Zaidi on the record of Application No. 12 of 1967, or at any rate should have applied. to this Court to bring the evidence of these persons on the record of the appeal. I cannot consider the evidence of these persons in an application for review of my order dated 19th May 1969.
5. I have gone through the evidence of Mr. Siddiqi, Mr. Badar Iqbal and the Enquiry Report of Mr. Zaidi, Mr. Siddiqi is the Accountant under whom the applicant was working. He is the best person to know as to whether the applicant was on leave or was absent from duty. Similarly, Me. Badar Iqbal was the Office Superintendent of the office under which the applicant was working. He was also a person, who was expected to know as to whether a person working in his office was absent from duty from 31st May 1965 to 7th October 1965. In this connection, I may mention that the period was so long that Mr. Siddiqi and Mr. Badar Iqbal could not make any mistake as to whether the applicant was absent from duty or was on leave. It is pertinent to note that Mr. Badar Iqbal made the following statement, on the basis of the record available with him:- "According to the record available, Mr. Saiful Kabeer remained on leave with effect from 31st May 1965 to 7th October 1965.
6. It was also urged in this connection that admittedly there is nothing on the record of Application No. 12 of 1967, to show that the application for leave of that applicant was refused. Mr. Zaidi, the Enquiry Officer, also came categorically to toe conclusion on the evidence led before him that the applicant was on leave from 31st May 1965 to 7th October 1965. In the e circumstances, if the evidence of Mr. Siddiqi and Mr. Badar Iqbal, and the Enquiry Report of Mr. Zaidi was brought on, the record of the appeal, perhaps the decision may have been different. Unfortunately, the applicant did not bring to my notice the statements of these persons, while pressing the appal. Equity and justice, however, demand that the Chairman of the Road Transport Corporation may consider the case of the applicant and instead of re-instating him may re-employ him An act of grace on the part of the Chairman, in these circumstances, I am sure, will be appreciated by the workmen and will strengthen the mutual trust and confidence. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chairman of the Road Transport Corporation for such action as he may due in necessary in the circumstance, which I have detailed above.