ARIF SHAH Versus ABASIN FLOUR AND GENERAL MILLS

1. The appellant was a permanent workman with the respondent but by order dated 19‑3‑1988 he was dismissed from service. His grievance was not redressed by the management and therefore he filed grievance petition in the Labour Court. The said Court dismissed the petition through order, dated 27‑9‑1989 and the legality of this order has been called in question in ‑the appeal.

2. The relevant facts, which can be gathered from the record are that earlier in 1981 the service of the appellant was terminated but by order dated 22‑11‑1981 he was reinstated by Labour Court. Thereafter, he was transferred from one section of Mill to another by order, dated 3‑10‑1987 which he also challenged in the Labour Court but with no success. On 1‑3‑1988 the appellant was served with a charge‑sheet to explain his inordinate absence from duty from 4‑10‑1987 till 1‑3‑1988. The reply of the appellant was not found satisfactory and hence an enquiry was conducted into the charge but the appellant in spite of service failed to join the enquiry proceedings. The Equiry Officer held him guilty of prolonged absence and consequently his dismissal was ordered on 19‑3‑1988.

3. The first objection that was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant was regarding the partial character of the Equiry Officer as it was stated that the said Officer had earlier in first round of litigation appeared as a witness against the appellant. This argument is devoid of substance because I went through the said statement and found that he had only produced certain record and had not given evidence regarding the merits of the case. On this count he cannot be dubbed as interested or partial. It was next submitted that the employer was bound to issue the charge‑sheet within 30 days of 4‑10‑1987 i.e. the date when the appellant first absented himself. This point will hold no good as the absence of the appellant from duty continued up to the date of the issuance of the charge‑sheet, therefore, being continuing wrong it was the discretion of the respondent to issue the charge‑sheet within thirty days either from the first wilful absence or from the last one. It is not the case of the appellant that the charge‑sheet was not given within thirty days of the last default in appearance. Lastly it was argued that the Labour Court has misunderstood the case as it has taken the proceedings as if they relate to transfer case whereas the appellant has challenged his dismissal order. I cannot agree with this statement as such an assumption cannot be spelt from the tenor of the order wherefrom it appears that the Labour Court was conscious that it was to decide about the order of dismissal. No other point was raised.

4. Accordingly this appeal is without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

5. H.B.T./162/Lb.N ????????

6. Appeal dismissed.