1988 PLP 305 (PLC)

Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondents. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 17‑9‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been appointed as Paraya in 1974 in the respondent‑establishment and continued to work till 8‑11‑1984 on which date the establishment had declared lay‑off which lasted on 15‑2‑1985 without payment of any wages to him. The appellant further claimed that on a result of a. complaint before the Assistant Director (Labour) Hyderabad, he bras disowned as employee of the respondent. Therefore, he filed a petition before the Labour Court and in consequence thereof, on 18‑4‑1985, the appellant submitted his duty report and had asked for the Gatepass as well as the attendance card which were refused by the respondent‑establishment. However, he was then charge‑sheeted on .24‑7‑1985 for remaining absent from duty followed by an enquiry resulting his dismissal from service on 10‑8‑1985 as he did not participate in the said enquiry. Then, again he submitted his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The respondent‑establishment resisted the petition on the main ground that as the appellant had in fact absented from duty, he was properly charge‑sheeted followed by a lawful and impartial enquiry in which the appellant did not participate. Further, the case of the respondent‑establishment was that as the appellant was continuously absent from his duty from 18‑4‑1985 therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service and so could not maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard both the parties at length and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant was issued a charge‑sheet for remaining absent from duty in continuity and that though a proper enquiry was held, but, the appellant had deliberately not participated in the same. Impliedly the worker is also under legal obligation to reply the charges and also to participate in the enquiry and to lead any defence he likes as well as to submit grievance against the enquiry officer to the competent authority, if there was an apprehension of mala fide on his part. There is nothing on record to prove that the respondent establishment had committed anything wrong in complying with the legal requirements before the dismissal of the appellant from his service. The appellant was himself responsible for his own deeds and to suffer for the same. The appellant has failed to establish any mala fide against the respondent‑establishment. Therefore, the learned Labour , Court has rightly dismissed his grievance petition.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and I would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. S.Q/1050/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.