Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑764 of 1980, decided on 28th November, 1982.

West Pakistan

-‑‑S. O. 15 (3) (a)‑Misconduct‑Absence without leave‑Application for extension of leave‑Intimation regarding rejection not given to workman‑Charge‑sheet served on resumption of duty‑In absence of intimation of rejection of application workman, held, could not be treated to have committed misconduct‑Consequential dismissal order set aside with back benefits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38.

Ch. Khalid Faroog for Appellant.

Munir‑ud‑Din Ansari for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 20th November 1982.

This is an appeal brought against the decision dated 30th of September, 1980 passed by the learned Pre3iding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the appellant was directed to be re‑instated, but back benefits were not allowed. In this appeal, the appellant has claimed back benefits.

2. The learned lower Court did not record any, reasons for not allowing the back benefits. The ground on which the learned lower Court directed the re‑instatement of the appellant was that no charge‑sheet was served upon the appellant within one month of the occurrence.

3. The facts are that the appellant applied for leave on 30th of August, 1979 from the said date up to 6‑9‑1979. The leave was disallowed on Ist of September, 1979 for the reason that the appellant was under investigation The appellant did not resume duty even after 6‑9‑1979 and reported for duty on 26th of September, 1979. He was given duty on 27th of September 1979. The charge‑sheet was chalked‑out on 27th of September, 1979. The learned Presiding Officer was of the view that the period of one month for the delivery of the charge‑sheet ended on 26th of October, 1979. The period rather came to an end on 25th of October, 1979, because the absence continued up to 25th of September, 1979. Besides this, even otherwise no action could be taken against the appellant, because it does not appear that he was informed of the fact that this leave had been disallowed to him. The record does not show that the appellant was informed about the order of Ist of September, 1979 recorded on his application. Unless he had been informed about the rejection of his leave application he could not know whether he was being treated absent. He came to know of the absence when he was given the charge‑sheet. Not only that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred but for this reason also the appellant could not be dismissed that he was not informed that he was being treated as absent. If the appellant had not made any application for leave and he had become absent, of course, information that he was being treated as absent was not necessary. Since the respondent did not inform the appellant about his absence, no misconduct was committed on his part, therefore, he is entitled to back benefits.

4. I accordingly accept the appeal and modify the order of the learned lower Court by allowing back benefits to .the appellant.

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.