1977 PLP 370 (PLC)

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Dismissal‑Respondent though alleged to be absent from 6th November without leave and inspite of grievance notice being served on 10th November on appellant, yet appellant employers making : no reply but instead issuing show‑cause notice on 21st November i.e., 11 days after service of grievance notice‑Show‑cause notice, held, an afterthought to cover illegality in terminating services of a permanent worker orally‑Order of termination of respondent's services, held, rightly set aside by Labour Tribunal. Kamal Ahmed Khan for Appellant. Choudhry M. Maarif for Respondent. This is au appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering, re‑instatment of the respondent with back benefits on an application made under section 25‑A, I.R.O.

2. The respondent was working as Weaver in the service of the appellant. According to the respondent he proceeded on Medical Leave from 9th October, 1973 to 14th October, 1975. On the expiry of the leave he resumed his duties. However, the appellant withheld the salary as well as the Cost of Living Allowance for the aforesaid period and when the respondent made the demand, his services were verbally terminated on 6th November, 1975. He, therefore, served a grievance notice on 10th November, 1915 but it was not replied and instead the appellant served show‑cause notice dated 21st November, 1975 on the allegation that the respondent had remained absent without leave for more than 10 days. The respondent denied the allegation and sent the reply. Before the inquiry was resumed the respondent approached the Labour Court by making an, application under Section 25‑A, I. R. O.

3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the service of the respondent was never terminated and, in fact, he had remained absent for more than 10 days without any leave. In the Reply Statement an offer was made to the respondent to resume his duties and no dismissal had yet been passed.

4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that the show‑cause notice issued by the appellant was not only belated but mala fide and it was given only after the respondent had served a grievance notice alleging that his service was verbally terminated. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

5. On perusal of the record and proceeding and hearing the arguments I entirely agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Presiding Officer. It is rather strange that, although, the respon dent was said to have remained absent w.e.f. 6th November, 1975 without any leave and, although, a grievance notice dated 10th November. 1975 was served upon the appellant, yet the appellant made no reply and instead issued a show‑cause notice on 11th November, 1975, i.e. after 11 days of the grievance notice. The absence of the respondent from 6th November, 1975 for 10 days would be up to 16th November, 1975, yet no step was taken by the appellant. Even the grievance notice was not replied and it was not claimed that his service was not terminated. In case there was any truth in the statement made by the appellant, there is no reason why the grievance notice remained unreplied. The show‑cause notice was an after‑thought to cover the illegality which had already been committed .as the service of the respondent could not be terminated orally as he was a permanent workman.

6. In result I maintain the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.