1987 PLP 291 (PLC)

Shaikh Wahid Bux for Applicant. A. Ghani Khan for Respondent. The applicant was appointed as Faraya in 1974 and continued to work as such till 8‑11‑1984. From this date the management declared lay off which lasted on 15‑2‑1985. However the applicant was refused the wages of lay off. He, therefore, approached the Assistant Director Labour, Hyderabad alongwith other persons but there also he was disowned as employee of the respondent. Accordingly, he filed an Application No. 28 of 1984 for his re‑instatement. In reply statement, dated 11‑4‑1985, the applicant was acknowledged as its worker by the respondent but pleaded that the applicant had first absented from duty from 5‑8‑1984 to 17‑9‑1984 and thereafter from 30‑9‑1984 till date of filing the said statement. On 18‑4‑1985 the applicant submitted his duty report and asked for furnishing gate pass and attendance card to enable him to join the duty but the same were refused. He was then charge‑sheeted on 24‑7‑1985 which was duly replied on 27‑7‑1985. As enquiry was then ordered to be held against him and one Mr. Abdul Ghani was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The applicant however, did not participate in the said enquiry, as he did not consider it necessary, He was finally dismissed on 10‑8‑1985. The plea of the management in its reply statement in nutshell is that the applicant had in fact absented from duty and so he was charge‑sheeted and, thereafter, enquiry was held ex parte because the applicant never appeared therein. He was found guilty and so was removed by the impugned order. It also pleaded that the lay off was from 10‑11‑1984 and since the applicant was absent from 1‑10‑1984 is continuity; he was not entitled to wages for the lay off period. He never reported for duty on 18‑4‑1985 and simply asked for some documents and since the request of the applicant was not tenable in law and since he did never report for duty, he cannot plead that he was not permitted duty. There was no requirement of issuing second show‑cause notice and so the impugned order of dismissal is in accordance with law. The applicant examined himself in support of his case, while Abdul Ghani, was examined on behalf of the respondent. After evidence, I have heard Mr. Shaikh Wahid Bux, Representative for the applicant, and Mr. A. Ghani Khan, Advocate for the respondent. I have also considered the material on record. Admittedly the applicant was charge‑sheeted for remaining absent from duty in continuity and that enquiry was also held by the management. There is no dispute that the applicant was though served with enquiry notice but he deliberately and intentionally did not participate in the enquiry. The only plea for not appearing before the A Enquiry Officer, as advanced by the applicant in this Court, is that he was sure that the Enquiry Officer would hold the applicant guilty of the charge of absence and that he would also be removed by the respondent and so he preferred to remain away from the enquiry proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant never intimated such apprehensions against the Enquiry Officer to the management or against the management to any one else nor he took up such plea in his grievance notice and on which his this petition is founded. The Legislature has laid down a procedure for taking action against any worker and such procedure has to be adopted. According to the provisions of S.0.15 the charge is first to be communicated and thereafter enquiry is to be conducted affording a fair and full opportunity of defence to the worker. 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. There is also another obligation on the worker to submit his grievance against the Enquiry Officer to the competent authority but a worker is not permitted in law to refuse to reply the charge‑sheet or to refuse to participate in the enquiry without any reason or justification whatsoever. If the management acts in compliance of the provisions of 5.0.15 as also in accord with natural justice and if the worker does not fulfil his legal obligations and chooses to remain away from the proceedings without any reason and intimation, the worker cannot plead before this Court that the action against him is liable to be set aside unless of course such an action is on the face of it unwarranted. In view of this legal position, I find that the applicant was not only charge‑sheeted but was also afforded full and fair opportunity of defence and that the applicant himself refused to avail such facility and opportunity without any just or reasonable cause or justification. He therefore, cannot question the vires and legality of the action of the management. It may be argued that the charge‑sheet was issued after the applicant had filed Application No. 28 of 1985 in this Court and so the same was mala fide and of no legal consequence. This argument is also of no substance for at least two reasons, firstly, the same as I discussed above that he himself remained away from the proceedings and, secondly, that the charge‑sheet can be issued by the management whenever any cause accrues to it. Charge is that he remained absent from 1‑10‑1985 and never reported for duty and so it was for the management to proceed or not to proceed and when to proceed against the applicant because the charge is a continuing one and after the completion of every 10 days of absence, always fresh cause of action accrued to it. I would repeat here that if the applicant considered the act of the management as mala fide, he was legally obliged to participate in the enquiry and to set up his defence before the Enquiry Officer. Since no deliberately remained away from proceedings, he cannot show any grievance now. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. S. Q. 18721 Lb Petition dismissed.