MUHAMMAD ANWAR BHATTI Versus COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN

DECISION

Muhammad Anwer Bhatti has brought this appeal against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 28‑11‑1974 whereby his application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him by the respondent‑Management (Colony Textile Mills Limited, Ismailabad, Multan) was dismissed. I have gone through the record of the learned Lower Court and that of the domestic enquiry besides hearing the parties in appeal. The appellant was charged with misconduct of defrauding the Management by remaining on leave from 8‑11‑1973 to 30‑4‑1973 on false pretext where he remained admitted during this period in Government College for Elementary Teachers, Bahawalpur as a regular student and thus tried to obtain the benefit of service under the respondent‑Management on clandestine basis. It is alleged against the appellant that he obtained leave from 8‑11‑1973 to 7‑12‑1973 on the pretext of his own marriage whereafter he applied for extension of leave from time to time through six further applications which were granted to allow him to remain on leave till 30th April, 1974 on the basis of his continuous illness. Since his leave was extended on different dates through Social Security Department the misrepresentation by the appellant could not come to light to the respondent‑Management. Somehow the Social Security Department came to know about the fraud and informed the respon dent‑Management about it‑vide letter dated 2‑5‑1974 (Exh. R‑3). The Director Social Security, Multan, stated in this letter that the appellant was a student of the Government Teachers Training College, Bahawalpur; with roll number 8 and the previous leave obtained by him fraudulently should be treated as cancelled. Another letter dated 7‑6‑1974 (Exh. R‑7) was addressed by the same officer to the appellant intimating him that his application dated 13‑5‑1971, for the grant of two months extension could not be accepted on the basis of Medical Certificates submitted by him unless his disease was verified by one of Medical Officers Incharge of the Social Security Department indicated therein. The appellant did not care to satisfy the department in this behalf where upon a tried letter addressed by the M. O. C. T. M. Ismailabad, Multan on 15‑6‑1975 (Exh. R‑11) intimated the appellant that the Social Security leave for the period from 10‑20‑1974 to 30‑4‑1971 bad been cancelled. A charge‑sheet was issued on 27‑5‑1974 to the appellant (Exh R‑4) to which a reply was sub mitted by the appellant on 30‑6‑1974 (Exh. R‑5). A notice of enquiry was sent by the Management (R‑6) on 4‑6‑1974 which was not responded to by the appellant. After this several letters were addressed to the appellant one of which dated 1‑7‑1974 (Exh. R‑9) carried the endorsement of the postman regarding refusal of the appellant to accept delivery thereof. The Enquiry Officer then proceeded to record the evidence and submitted the enquiry report (Exh. R‑12) on 18‑7‑1974. Second show‑cause notice (Exh. R‑13) was given to the appellant on 22‑7‑1974 which was replied by the appellant on 31‑7‑1974. Then ‑a letter of personal hearing (Exh. R‑16) was sent to the appellant on 1‑8‑1974 in response whereof he presented himself before the Manager of the mills on 3‑8‑1974 as a result of which final letter of dismissal was issued against the appellant on 8‑8‑1974.

In this background of the circumstances the appellant has failed to show any reasonable justification for getting the leave from 8‑11‑1973 to 30‑4‑1974 on any valid basis. He has submitted that he wanted to avail himself of the leave for the cause of education and for no other cause and on that score he could not be said to have defrauded she management. But the contention cannot prevail in view of the misrepresentation of the fact by taking advantage of beneficial service under the management while getting admitted In a College on regular basis. The management held a proper enquiry against the appellant and gave him full opportunity of putting up his defence in the enquiry. The appellant however wilfully avoided to put up his defence and was rightly terminated by the management. I find no defect in the impugned order or in the domestic enquiry conducted against the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The file may be consigned.