1984 PLP 1438 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Supplying copy of complaint‑‑Demand for workman--Management, held, not duty bound to supply copy of "Complaint of its own accord, unless demand is made by a workman. Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant. Naeem Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th June, 1982. In this appeal the decision dated 18th. October, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lah re has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of, the appellant for his reinstate went was dismissed

2. The appellant was Ice Compressor Operator in the respondent mills. He was charge‑sheeted on 25th March, 1978 for misbehaving and abusing Mechanical Foreman, his immediate officer. An enquiry was held against him in which he was found guilty. He was served with the second show‑cause notice and was ultimately dismissed from service.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the second show‑cause notice a new matter was incorporated and, therefore, making of re‑enquiry was necessary. He says that in the second show cause notice it was mentioned that the appellant entered the factory when he was not on duty and abused and misbehaved with the Foreman, where as in the charge‑sheet it was not mentioned that he had entered the factory when he was not on duty. By mentioning in the second show‑cause notice that the appellant had, entered the factory when he was not on duty, neither extraneous matter was brought into consideration, nor any allega tion of another misconduct was made. I, therefore, do not find any force R in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the making of any re‑enquiry was necessary:

4. Next point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the copy of the complaint was not delivered to the appellant alongwith the charge‑sheet. In this respect learned counsel has cited 1972 P L C

337. Actually there was a demand in an industrial dispute to the effect that the copy of the original complaint should be provided to the workman enabl ing him to meet the charge properly. The demand was allowed holding that it was compatible with the principle of natural justice. As the demand was rational and based upon principle of natural justice, it was allowed but it does not mean that in cases where there is no settlement or award in this respect, failure on the part of the management to deliver the copy of the complaint alongwith the charge‑sheet, vitiates the proceedings and the order of dismissal. This is not the case of the appellant that ‑ the application, was made for the supply of the copy. of ‑the complaint, but the copy was not given. It is not the duty of the management to supply the copy of the complaint of its own accord, unless a demand is made. In the present case as no such request was made, therefore, by the non -supply of the copy of the complaint, proceedings were not vitiated. Moreover, it has not been shown that for the non‑supply of the copy of the, complaint, the appellant was prejudiced or any miscarriage of justice was resulted.

5. The other point raised by the learned 'counsel for the appellant is that the charge‑sheet was time-barred, inasmuch as the misconduct took place on 19th March, 1978 but the charge‑sheet/enquiry notice copy of which is Exh. D. 3 is dated 25th April, 1978. This point is also devoid of force. Exh. D. 3 dated 26th April, 1978 is not the charge‑sheet, but is in reality an enquiry notice. The charge‑sheet is Exh. D. 1 which is dated 25th March, 1978. The charge‑sheet, therefore, was not time‑barred.

6. No defect has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the enquiry proceedings, nor he has argued that opportunity of cross‑examination and production of defence was not given. The offence was brought home to the appellant. The learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant: There is no force an the appeal, which is dismissed. M. Y. M Appeal dismissed.