Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. QSA‑260 of 1982, decided on 13th December, 1983.
‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (e)‑Absence without leave‑Application for leave submitted‑Intimation of rejection not sent to accused‑Accused, in circumstances, held, did not wilfully absent himself without leave- Grievance petition against dismissal for such charge, in circum stances, held, rightly accepted by Labour Court awarding reinstate ment with back benefits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Khurshid Ahmad for Appellant.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 29th November, 1983.
The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 31st March, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala directing the re‑instatement of the respon dent in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent is a driver. He was dismissed on the allegation that he remained absent without leave from 7th May, 1981 to 8th April, 1981. Admittedly, he had applied for leave for the said period. The case of the appellant is that leave was not sanctioned but to spite of it the respondent did not resume duty. It has not been proved that in reality any intimation of rejection of leave was sent to the respondent. Three letters Exhs. R. B., R. C. and R. D. are on the record. Exhs. R. B. and R. C. came back refused and Exh. R. D. beats the report that the addres see had not been found and inmates refused to take delivery. But none of these three letters is an information that leave has not been sanctioned. Since it has not been proved that intimation of re iection of leave was sent, the respondent was wrongly treated as absent without leave. No enquiry notice has been proved to have been sent to the respondent. Exh. R. C. is the enquiry notice for 5th April, 1981 or 5th May. 1981. Its postal receipt is Exh. R. Q/1 but enquiry was held on 16th August. 1981 and there is no proof on the record that any notice for the said date was sent to the respondent. The enquiry proceedings are Exh. P. P. They carry the date as 16th August, 1981. The respondent has no doubt said that he had gone to the Mills on 24th April, 1981 to joint the enquiry but he was not allowed by the gate‑keeper to enter the Mills. It is argued that the respondent had the knowledge of enquiry, so if sending of enquiry notice has not been established, it makes no difference. The position in reality is quite different. The respondent did state so, but as mentioned above, enquiry was held on 16th August, 1981. Intimation to join enquiry should have been sent for 16th August, 1981 but as observed above there is no proof of the service of enquiry notice for the said date. So, the respondent was condemned unheard. The respondent did not willfully absent himself without leave. Rather no intimation of rejection of leave was sent to him. So, he has been rightly re‑instated in service with back benefits.
3. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer