1993 PLP 882 (PLC(CS))

Latif Saghar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th December 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 30‑8‑1986, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O.1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman in the respondent‑Railways and was posted at Mirpurkhas as a Cleaner and that in the year 1974, he was arrested by the police on a charge of forging and fabricating the signatures of the then Chief Minister and Central Minister and that on account of this arrest, he was suspended by the respondent‑Railways which was continued till his dismissal from service on 24‑3‑1983. It was further claimed by the appellant that though it was claimed that from 1974 to 21‑6‑1982 he was remained absent without any proper intimation and permission of the concerned authorities, yet, no action against him was taken. It was further claimed by the appellant that on 21‑6‑1982, suddenly he was charge‑sheeted on the ground of his being absent without permission from 17‑9‑1979. He claimed that though on 6‑7‑1982 the charge‑sheet was satisfactorily replied by him yet, he was removed from the employment with effect from 17‑7‑1982 vide order, dated 24‑3‑1979. The appellant claimed that being aggrieved with this action of the respondent Railways, he, on 22‑5‑1983 submitted a departmental appeal followed by a number of reminders, lastly up to 24‑12‑1984 and, however, his appeal was rejected by the respondent‑Railways, vide letter, dated 27‑1‑1985. Therefore, the appellant served upon the respondent‑Railways his grievance notice followed by his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O.,1969.

2. The case of the respondent‑Railways before the learned Labour Court was that as the appellant was involved in a case of fraud and forgery, therefore, he was suspended and despite of several directions, he did not report for duty and that after issuing a proper charge‑sheet he was removed from the employment. It was further a case of the respondent‑Railways that as the appellant himself had admitted his absence without permission or intimation, therefore, it was not necessary to hold any enquiry against him on this charge had so he was rightly dismissed from the service and that the departmental appeal filed by him on 20‑12‑1984 was also hopelessly time‑barred. Hence, the appellant was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition, which was liable to be dismissed.

3. Both the parties examined themselves in support of their respective contentions and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent‑Railways and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position by the appellant himself that the appellant remained absent from duty from 1979 and neither he reported for duty and nor sent any intimation to the respondent‑Railways and that in reply to the charge -sheet, he, by admitting all the allegations against him, had only requested the respondent‑Railways for sympathetic consideration of his case under an unconditional apology. It is also an admitted position by the appellant that he had replied to the charge‑sheet after substantial delay. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had ever controverted to his above un ambiguous admission. Therefore the learned Labour Court was quite right in coming to the conclusion that when once the charge was admitted without any condition and when the appellant did not report for duty even after issuance of the charge‑sheet it was not necessary for the respondent‑Railways to hold any enquiry against the appellant. In view of these facts, I would hold that Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant has no case and that the impugned order needs not be interfered with.

5. For the reasons stated above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed. M.Y.H./1174/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.