1979 PLP 169 (PLC)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 4th February 1977. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.

2. The appellant was in the service of the respondent since 1st June, 1973. On account of some misconduct he was charge‑sheeted on 23rd November, 1976, but he did not submit any explanation. An inquiry was ordered and the appellant was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 17th December, 1975. He did not participate in the inquiry. Consequently, the inquiry was held ex parte and the appellant was found guilty of misconduct. A show‑cause notice was issued and was received by the appellant. He neither submitted explanation nor appeared for personal hearing. On the basis of the inquiry he was dismissed from service. After dismissal the appellant claimed Rs. 1,160.39 as his legal dues, which were not paid. After service of grievance notice he made application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance challenging the dismissal and claiming re‑instatement.

3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the appellant was dismissed from service for misconduct after proper inquiry and he was found guilty. On the assessment of the evidence learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application. He held that, although, every opportunity was allowed the appellant to participate in the inquiry and defend himself, yet he remained absent and did not care to contest the charge‑sheet. Consequently, no fault could be found with the inquiry proceedings which were held.

4. I have heard the learned Representative for the appellant while, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent and I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned. Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. It has been fully established that the appellant was charge‑sheeted and the inquiry was held after due notice to him. He did no participate in the inquiry. A show‑cause notice was also sent to him, yet h made no attempt to submit any explanation.

5. It was, however, contended by the learned Representative for the appellant that the appellant was not paid his dues, but no such relief can be granted in the present proceedings as he had approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and a decision was given in his favour, upholding the claim and directing the respondent to pay the dues It is claimed that order has not been implemented. That may be so, but the appellant should have recourse to the proper provision of law for the implementation of the order instead of making application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.

6. In result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed