Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 11th June, 1983 passed in Writ Petition No. 55 of 1983).

‑‑ Art. 185(3) ‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), ' S. 25‑A‑Dismissal of employee from service‑Grievance petition of petitioner against his dismissal dismissed by Labour Court ‑ Labour Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, finding that petitioner had absented himself from duty after expiry of leave‑Petitioner failing to prove that he submitted any application for extension of leave ‑ No reason, found for interference with impugned order of Tribunal‑Leave to appeal refused.

M. Kokab Iqbal Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 11th February, 1984.

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--

‑This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 11‑6‑1983 passed in Writ Petition 55/83.

2. The petitioner while serving as Traffic Assistant, PIA was dismissed from service vide order dated 13‑11‑1977 on the charge of absence from duty. The learned counsel contended before us that the petitioner had fallen sick and had been submitting leave applications on medical ground; that ex parse inquiry was conducted and an ex parte order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner; that the petitioner served a grievance notice to which no reply was received by him; that thereafter the petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging his dismissal from service which was dismissed by the Punjab Labour Court per order dated 17‑5‑1982 appeal against which was also dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 26‑10‑1982 and thereafter a writ petition was filed against the said judgment of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but the same was also dismissed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry against the petitioner was illegal being without a charge sheet; that it is settled law that time does not run against an ex-parte illegal and void order; that the learned appellate Labour Tribunal did not confine itself to the question of limitation which alone was the basis of the dismissal of the case of the petitioner, and rejected the appeal on the ground that the leave applications of the petitioner were sanctioned up to 26‑4‑1977 only and not for the period from 27‑4‑1977 up to 13-11‑1977 which is the date of order dismissing the petitioner from service.

4. We have gone through the impugned order and find that the petitioner had deliberately absented himself from duty after the leave sanctioned up to 26‑4‑1977 and no application with proper medical certificate was sent by him with the result that on 13‑11‑1977 he was dismissed after having been issued the charge‑sheet and the due inquiry. The petitioner has failed to prove that he bad been submitting applications for extension of leave. Though applications Exhs. P. 15, P. 17 and P. 19 are placed on the record but no medical certificates are attached therewith. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Leave refused. Petition dismissed.

S. Q. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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