HAIDER ZAMAN Versus Messrs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 6‑12‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1369.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman of the respondent mills and also an office‑bearer of Azad Labour Union in the respondent textile mills. The claim of the appellant was that as he was dismissed from service on alleged charge of misconduct without affording any proper and lawful opportunity to defend himself and in consequence of that dismissal, he approached the Labour Court, therefore, the learned Labour Court, vide its order, dated 4‑2‑1986 in an application No.44 of 1985, under section 25‑A, I. R.O. 1969, had ordered his re‑instatement in service with a direction to the respondent mills to hold fresh enquiry against him. That, in accordance with this order of the learned Labour Court, the appellant claimed to have reported for duty on 4‑2‑1986, 5‑2‑1986 and 6‑2‑1986, but he was not taken on duty and instead he received an enquiry letter to appear before the enquiry officer on 9‑2‑1986. He claimed that again he was refused entry into the premises of the respondent mills to participate in the enquiry, therefore, he protested and subsequently on 24‑2‑1986, he received a letter dismissing him from service with effect from 22‑2‑1986. Therefore, the appellant again submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.
3. The respondent mills resisted the petition of the appellant mainly on the ground that in pursuance of the Labour Court's earlier orders, the appellant was directed to resume his duties but he did not do so and further that as the fresh enquiry was also directed, therefore, they had made all possible, genuine and lawful efforts to provide full opportunity to the appellant to appear before the enquiry officer and to defend himself. Further, the case of the respondent mills was that the appellant had himself deliberately and purposefully avoided to comply with the orders of the learned Labour Court only with an ulterior motive to plead his victimization, therefore, a lawful ex parte enquiry, was conducted against him resulting in his dismissal from service. Thus, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition for his own guilt and omission and it was rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit‑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 Mr. Raja Shamsuz Zaman, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Messrs Masood Mirza and Siddiq Mirza, the learned counsel for the respondent mills and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset I would hold that the learned Labour Court has passed very well discussed and reasoned, impugned order on each and every pleadings of the parties and there is nothing wrong with it, Mr. Raja Shamsuz Zaman, the learned Advocate for the appellant has miserably failed to add anything new in the present appeal to what the has already pleaded before the learned Labour Court. Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned Advocate for the respondent mills has fully supported the impugned order and he has also nothing new to add in support of his case. After a thorough and careful examination of the evidence and documents brought on the record and considering the legal aspects of the case, I have come to a conclusion that the respondent mills was not at all at fault in not complying with the directions of the learned Labour Court to hold fresh enquiry against the appellant and to afford proper and reasonable opportunity to defend himself and it is the appellant himself A who should be held responsible for negligence and laches. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the well‑reasoned impugned order and I would accordingly hold the same view as had been taken by the learned Labour Court.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal accordingly.
A. E. /1102/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.