Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. F. D.‑677 of 1981/Pb., decided on 21st June, 1982.

‑‑ Leave‑On medical grounds‑‑Application supported by medical certificate‑Objection that certificate should have been countersigned by Social Security Doctor ‑ Not raised while worker was ill-- Asking workman to get medical certificate countersigned after he fully recovered and reported for duty‑Not justified.

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑-----

‑‑‑ S. O. 15 (4)‑Charge‑sheeting and holding of inquiry‑Provisions mandatory‑ Indispensible ‑ Accused's failure to make reply to charge‑sheet‑No ground for not holding inquiry.

Shamim Ahmad Khan for Appellant.

Muhammad Latif Randhawa for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 19th May, 1982.

The appellant was a doffer. He applied for leave on medical ground from 7th December, 1980 to 6th January, 1981. He made second applica tion for leave on the same ground from 7th January, 1981 to 13th January, 1981. When he reported for duty on 14th January, 1981., he was not allowed. He was, thereafter, charge‑sheeted for absence without lave, to which he gave no reply. Without holding enquiry the appellant was dismissed from service.

2. The learned lower Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant on the ground that much was said about the propriety of the orders of rejection of leave but the propriety of the order of dismissal was not challenged. The appellant in his petition did challenge the dismissal. Dismissal order always follows the rejection of leave when the dismissal is on the ground of absence, so the appellant had challenged the rejection of leave for getting the order of dismissal set aside.

3. The leave application was rejected for the reason that the medical certificate had not been got countersigned from Social Security Hospital. No doubt the appellant was asked to get countersigned the medical certificate but it was said after the grievance notice was given by the appellant. The appellant could have got countersigned the certificate when still he was ill but not after he had recovered. Obviously no doctor would verify the illness after the patient has fully recovered. When the appellant reported for duty he was not allowed to work. Thereafter he sent a grievance notice. In answer to the notice it was mentioned that be should have got himself examined and treated by the Social Security Hospital. Even in the said reply dated 10th February, 1981 he was not advised to get the medical certificate countersigned by the Social Security Doctor. Rather he was asked, to report for duty. When he reported for duty he was again refused to be taken back. After that he was advised, vide letter Exh. R. 3 dated 16th March, 1981 to get the medical certificates countersigned from the Social Security Doctor. By that time the appel lant had fully recovered and had even reported for duty on 14th January, 1981. If the respondent had advised him during illness to get himself medically examined from the Social Security Doctor and he had failed to do so, there could be some justification to reject his leave applications.

4. The other thing is that no enquiry was held against the appellant before he was dismissed. Provisions of Standing Order 15 (4) are mandatory. In cases of dismissal, charge‑sheeting and holding of enquiry are indispensible. The mere fact that the appellant did not reply to the charge‑sheet could not be a ground for not holding enquiry. If enquiry had been held, the appellant would have a chance to prove that in reality he had remained ill during the period covered by his leave application. The appellant, therefore, was condemned unheard and the rule audi alteram partem applies in his case. In this view of the matter, the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal are not sustainable. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the order of the learned lower Court and the dismissal order, direct the rein statement of the appellant in service with back benefits.

A.E. 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.