1981 PLP 884 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing : 18th February, 1981. The appellant, who was employed as a Reeler in the Reeling Department of the respondent‑Mills, was dismissed from service with effect from 27th June, 1979 on the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, dated 2nd May, 1979. The said charge‑sheet read as follows :‑‑

2. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned Fourth Labour Court, through "grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. The respondent‑Mills resisted the appellants grievance petition on the ground that the appellant's misconduct had been duly established in a domestic enquiry where in three witnesses, namely, Jobber Ghulam Rasool, Head Jobber, Amir Zada and Supervisor Mohammad Shareef had testified against the appellant. It was further contended by the respondent‑Mills that the enquiry against the appellant was conducted fairly and impartially and that before the orders of dismissal were issued against the appellant he was served with a second show‑cause notice. The learned Labour Court has taken the view that the misconduct of the appellant had been duly established in the domestic enquiry which was conducted fairly and impartially. It has repelled the contention of the appellant that he was not served with a second show‑cause notice. The learned Labour Court accordingly, dismissed the appellant's grievance petition. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

3. I have heard Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Hafiz, who appeared for the respondent Mills, Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on the grounds‑‑‑ (i) that not only the witnesses in the domestic enquiry gave evidence against the appellant in respect of matters not referred to in the charge‑sheet but further the Enquiry Officer also found the appellant guilty of these extraneous allegations. which fact must have influenced the employee while determining the action, if any, to be taken against the appellant and these circumstances have, therefore, invalida ted the dismissal orders in respect of the appellant: and (ii) that no show‑cause notice was given to the appellant.

4. As regards his first contention Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim submitted that whereas the charge‑sheet, dated 2nd May, 1979 referred only to the allegations of misbehavior with the jobber by the appellant, all the witnesses in the domestic enquiry also gave evidence in regard to the subsequent conduct of the appellant and testified that he had not been attending to his duties. In their testimony before the Enquiry Officer, Jobber Ghulam Rasool Head Jobber, Amir Zada and Supervisor, Muhammad Shareef have testified that on 29th April, 1979 after the incident in question the appellant mostly was not working on his machines and he was working whenever he liked or pleased. The Enquiry Officer in his report, has summarised the evidence of the witnesses given in the enquiry proceedings and he also referred to these allegations made by the witnesses. There is no dispute that these allega tions do not form part of the charges made against the appellant in the Charge‑Sheet, dated 2nd May, 1979. However, Enquiry Officer has not held the appellant guilty of these allegations and has held him to be guilty only of the charges mentioned in the charge‑sheet, dated 2nd May, 1979. Furthermore, he has specifically held him guilty of misconduct under sub‑clauses (a) and (b) of clause (3) of Standing Order 15 and not of neglecting his work, which falls under sub‑clause (i) of clause (3) of Standing Order

15. Mere mention of the allegations of neglect of work by the Enquiry Officer, without his holding the workman guilty of such misconduct cannot be considered to be a finding of guilty of such misconduct on the part of the Enquiry Officer. As such, the report of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to have influenced the employer through extraneous allegations not contained in the charge‑sheet. This is further clear from the second show‑cause notice, dated 17th June, 1919 issued to the appellant which makes no mention of the allegations subsequent to the incident referred to in the charge‑sheet, dated 2nd May, 1979.

5. This brings me to a consideration of the second contention of Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim that the second show‑cause notice was not served upon the appellant. This contention is based on the assertion of the appellant that the said show‑cause notice was not served upon him. However, it has been asserted by the witness of the respondent Mills, Shahid, who is Assistant Labour Officer in the said Mills, that he had personally served the said notice on the appellant. Support to the evidence of witness. Shahid is provided by the carbon copy of the second show‑cause notice which bears the signature of the appellant. This signature alongwith the admitted signatures of the appellant were sent for comparison to the handwriting expert who has opined that they are of the same person. However, as the Handwriting Expert was not examined, his report is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be referred to. I have compared the signature on the second show‑cause notice with the admitted signatures of the appellant on his letters, which appear as Exhs. A‑7 and A‑8, on the record of the learned Labour Court and am of opinion that they tally. I would, therefore, endorse the observation of the learned Labour Court that the appellant has falsely denied his signatures on this and other documents and that no reliance can be placed on his testimony.

6. The evidence of the three witnesses recorded in the domestic enquiry fully establishes the charges made against the appellant in the charge sheet, dated 2nd May, 1979. The Enquiry Officer also appears to have conducted the enquiry proceedings fairly and impartially and given a balanced report. No fault, thus, can be found in the enquiry proceedings and the dismissal order based thereon.

7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.