Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑537 of 1979, heard on 22nd September, 1980.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 37‑‑Termination of service on account of miscon duct ‑ Grievance petition accepted by Labour Court on ground second show‑cause notice being not served ‑ Record indicative of service of such notice with copies of enquiry report‑Order of Labour Court regarding re‑instatement of workman, in circum stances, set aside in appeal by Appellate Tribunal.

Raees M. Mushtaq for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 22nd September, 1980.

The respondent, whose services as Bus Conductor were terminated by the appellant Corporation, vide its order, dated 23rd November, 1978, challenged the said order before the learned VIth Labour Court by way of a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. The learned Labour Court took the view that the respondent had not been served with the second show‑cause notice after the alleged domestic enquiry was held against him and accordingly has held that no proper opportunity was given to the respondent to defend himself. It accordingly directed the appellant‑Corporation to re‑instate the respondent with full back benefits. The appellant corporation has challenged this decision in appeal before this Tribunal.

2. The respondent, though due notice of the hearing of this appeal was sent to him at his correct address, by registered post, has failed to put in an appearance. I have accordingly heard only Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq, the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation. The learned counsel submitted that it had been admitted by the respondent himself that the second show‑cause notice was in fact received by him and in support of his contention he referred me to para. 2 of the respondent's affidavit before the learned Labour Court. In that affidavit, while admitting the receipt of the second show‑cause notice, he has merely complained that no copy of the enquiry report was given to him along with the second show‑cause notice. In view of this admission on the part of the respondent, it cannot be said that he was not served with the second show‑cause notice. Apparently, the attention of the learned VIth Labour Court was not invited to this admission on the part of the res pondent himself and consequently it took an erroneous view of the matter.

3. I am further of the view that the plea of the respondent that he had not been furnished with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report is unfounded. A copy of the second show‑cause notice served upon the respondent was produced by the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court and appears at page 65 of the record. The said copy bears the endorsement " Below and above that endorsement are signatures which according to the appellant Corporation are of the respondent. The learned Labour Court, however, was of opinion that these signatures are not of the respondent. This opinion was based on 2 circumstances, first, that the respondent had denied that these are his signatures, and secondly, that on comparison of these signatures with the admitted signatures of the respondent, it was of the opinion that the 2 sets of signatures did not tally. I have carefully examined the signatures on the second show‑cause notice and I find that the signatures read "Mohammad Badal". As against this, the admitted signatures of the respondent read "Badal Khan". It appears that this was perhaps the main factor which influenced the learned Labour Court in taking the view that the signatures on the second show‑cause notice did nit tally with the .admitted signatures of the respondent. However. I find that on the copy of the charge‑sheet, in his explanation to the charge‑sheet and in his evidence before the Enquiry Officer, the res pondent‑ first signed "Mohammad Badal" and thereafter scored out ‑Mohammad" and signed as "Badal Khan". The word "Badal" in the signatures on the second show‑cause notice corresponds with and is similarly written as the word "Badal" in. the signatures on the admitted documents. As such, I am inclined to take a different view from that of the learned Labour Court and I am of opinion that the signatures on the second show‑cause notice are of the respondent. As already pointed out, there is an endorsen3ent on the second show‑cause notice that copies of the case, which means the enquiry papers, were received alongwith the copy of the second show‑cause notice. As such, the plea of the respondent that he has not received a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report, does not appear to be correct.

4. For the foregoing reasons, I find myself unable to concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court. I would accordingly set , aside the findings and the decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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