Find a Lawyer

--- S. 25-A-Show-cause notice--Application filed by worker clearly stating Inquiry Officer report to be perverse and contrary to facts, without application of mind and with a wrong approach-Contention of inquiry report not being supplied to worker with show-cause notice, held, fortified in circumstances.

-- S. 25-A-Dismissal-Question of fact-Contention that dismissal order was perverse and not supported by evidence on record Question involved, held, a question of fact and its appreciation lay with Inquiry Officer and not with Labour Tribunal.

-- S. 25-A-Habitual negligence-Worker stating system of adminis tration to be improper, no proper time-table, and fact of every worker remaining out for mote than one hour-Worker further admitting never to have gone out alone but with other workers Worker's habitual absence during working hours, held clearly proved on his own statement and his dismissal not improper.

AshraJ Hussain Rizvl for Appellant.

Mehmood A. Ghana for Respondent.

Date hearing : 21st October 1976.

This is an appeal under section 37 (3), I. R. O. against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25-A.

2. The appellant was in the service of the respondent and was working as waver. Ire habitually restrained absent and neglected to perforce his duties in spite of the warnings issued to him from time to time. He had also quarreled with a watchman. He was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held. Enquiry Officer exonerated the appellant an the second charge but found him guilty for habitual negligence and neglect of work. A second show-cause notice was issued and thereafter he was dismissed from service.

3. Aggrieved by this, he served a grievance notice upon the Management and made an application under section 25-A. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence did not accept the allegations made by the appellant and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed.

4. The learned representative for the appellant raised three grounds before me assailing the order of the Labour Court and the dismissal. The first ground taken by him is that the appellant was not allowed to lead defence during the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. There is no substance in this allegation. The appellant in the cross-examination clearly admitted that he had no complaint about the enquiry. Apart from this, enquiry papers show that the appellant did not produce any witness in defence and, therefore, the enquiry was closed. In the face of these facts how it can be said that the appellant was not allowed to lead defence.

5. The second objection that was raised is that inquiry report was not supplied with the show-cause notice. This allegation is also without substance. Apart from the fact that the enquiry papers show that the inquiry report was given along with the show-cause notice, the respondent) took precaution and sent a registered letter containing the show-cause notice and inquiry report but the appellant refused to accept it. This letter is at page 87 of the record and bears the endorsement of the postman. Again in the application under section 25-A it vas clearly stated in para.5 that the enquiry officer submitted the report, which was perverse and contrary to facts, without application of his mind with a wrong approach. In case the inquiry report was not received by the appellant how he made such a statement.

6. The third ground that was taken is that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent was perverse and not supported by the evidence on record. I am afraid, this is a question of fact and its appreciation lies with the enquiry officer and, therefore, it cannot be gone into. Moreover, not only there is evidence en record that the appellant was guilty of misconduct, but his own statement appearing at page 77 goes against him. In this statement he virtually admitted the allegations. He stated that the system of administration was improper and there was no proper time-table and every worker was remaining out for more than one hour. He further admitted that he never went alone but used to go out with other workers. This clearly proves that he habitually used to remain absent during the working hours and thereby neglected to perform his duty.

7. In result the appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.