1988 PLP 450 (PLC(CS))

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant. Bashir Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14thDecember, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, against the impugned order, dated 21‑1‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as Cashier in the respondent Bank and was dismissed from service on 11‑11‑1981, on the basis of a charge‑sheet, dated 17‑1‑1981 containing 17 different charges served upon him on 1‑2‑1981. A domestic enquiry was conducted on this charge‑sheet and as the appellant was found guilty of these charges, therefore, he was dismissed. The appellant, then, submitted a grievance petition before the Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had ordered the re‑instatement of the appellant in service on a technical point, vide under, dated 21‑3‑1983, but, an option was given to the respondent Bank to hold fresh enquiry within: a period of two months from the date of the said order and the payment of back benefits was made dependent on the result of the fresh enquiry. In view of this order of the Labour Court, the appellant was reinstated in service by the respondent Bank, but, vide letter dated 14‑4‑1983, one Syed Anwar Ali, Assistant Vice‑President of Zonal Office, Hyderabad, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the same on 24‑4‑1983 at 2.00 P. M. at Palejani Branch, therefore, the said enquiry was started on 24‑4‑‑1983 and proceeded with till 11‑5‑1983. It was alleged by the appellant that the appellant was not afforded any fair chance of defence and however, on 16‑‑5‑1983 he was dismissed and against this dismissal order, the appellant has preferred a Departmental Appeal on 30‑5‑1983 and as no reply to this appeal was received by him, therefore, he filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court.

3. The respondent Bank had resisted the petition on the ground that during the course of fresh enquiry, the conduct and attitude of the appellant had been highly objectionable and that the appellant made unlawful attempts to delay the finalization of the fresh enquiry in order to consume the prescribed period of two months as had been fixed by the Labour Court. It was also the case of the respondent Bank that full and fair opportunity was afforded to the appellant to defend himself. It was, however, submitted that as the appellant had himself admitted the charge, vide his own application, Annexure R/1 of the record and that at the time of alleged cause of action, he was also working as a Branch Manager, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service, hence, his petition was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the petition, hence this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent Bank and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observ here that Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant has no case as he has nothing now to say what he had submitted before the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court had very elaborately and convincingly dismissed and answered to each and every point, raised by him. Considering all the facts, legal position and circumstances on record of the learned Labour Court, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the charge‑sheet, in question, was not time‑barred. I would also upheld the findings of the learned Labour Court that in this particular case, neither service of second show‑cause notice was necessary nor the report of the enquiry officer was to be provided and that the respondent Bank did commit no illegality. In this respect, I am fortified with the observation of the Supreme Court in a case, reported in PLD 1981 S C at page

225. The learned Labour Court has also rightly held that after examination of Mr. Ashiq Hussain one of the Investigation Officers, before the Enquiry Officer, it was not necessary for the management to produce other Investigation officer, as it was for the management to adduce any evidence in support of its casb and that the Enquiry Officer had afforded him full and fair opportunity to defend himself and to lead evidence in his defence, but, the appellant did not avail the same, for which he should thank himself. Even, on merits, the appellant had no case, as had been rightly. held by the learned Labour Court. 6.For the reasons, stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and I would maintain the same. This appeal is dismissed accordingly. M. Y. H. /884/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.