Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD/758 of 1982, decided on 11th October, 1983.

Misconduct-Absence without leave-Workman committed to Jail-Not sending any application from Jail for leave-Held, rightly charged for absence without leave.

-- S. 25-A-Grievance notice-Not bearing signatures of aggrieved workman-Not a legal notice.

Saleem Baig for Appellant.

M. Aram for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 8th October, 1983.

The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision dated 25th November, 1982 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was sanctioned leave from 4th August, 1981 to 3rd September, 1981 but he did not resume duty after its expiry. He had been arrested and sent to jail but he did not inform the appellant, there fore, charge-sheet and enquiry notice were sent at his home address by registered post but they did not come back un-served. After making ex parte enquiry the respondent was dismissed. The learned lower Court has held that the fact that the respondent was in the jail stands establish his observation is ex facie wrong. The shed, so absence was not wilful. respondent could send application for leave from jail. He was not in such a position that he could not contact the employer by post. He said that he had sent application from jail but could not establish it since no copy of the application and jail record was produced to establish ties fact. Every letter or application of a prisoner or under-trial goes out through jail authorities and they are entered in jail record. Thus, this is clear that the absence was without leave.

3. The grievance notice is not legal and the learned lower Court has wrongly held that it did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Since it did B not bear the signatures of the respondent, it was not a legal notice. Office copy of notice, no doubt, is signed but before producing it in the Court, it could be signed. Copy of notice is not that notice which was sent to the appellant. Since it was unsigned, it cannot be said that it was given by -the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has said that he had no instruction to appear, so he without arguing the appeal left and this appeal is being decided ex parte.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.

A. 9. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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