Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 136 of 1983 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 93 of 1984, decided on 19th November, 1984.

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

---S.O.15(3)(e)--Misconduct--Words "more than ten days" would not mean absence of just ten days but would mean eleven days--Word "more" indicates intention of Legislature that absence without leave, in order to be punishable as misconduct, should be of at least 11 days and not just 10 days.--[Words and phrases].

Wasim Sajjad for Petitioner.

This Constitutional Petition is directed against the order, dated 25-10-1982, passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal of the present petitioner against the judgment of Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi, dated 27-2-1982 was dismissed.

2. The facts of this case are that Muhammad Hanif respondent was employed as Cafeteria Supervisor in Hotel Inter-Continental, Rawalpindi. He was found absent from duty without leave for more than ten days and as such, given a charge-sheet, dated 17-6-1981, which according to the learned 'counsel for the petitioner, was received by him on 20-6-1981. (It was, however, stated by the learned counsel during arguments that for purposes of arguments he would consider that the said charge-sheet was received by Muhammad Hanif on 17-6-1981). After service of charge-sheet, an inquiry was held. A final show-cause notice was given to him whereafter Muhammad Hanif was dismissed from service on 18-7-1981. After legal formalities, Muhammad Hanif filed an application under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance before Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, which was accepted on 27-2-1982. The respondent Muhammad Hanif was ordered to be re-instated in service. The present petitioner went up in appeal against the re-instatement of Muhammad Hanif respondent but the same was dismissed on 25-10-1982; hence this petition.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Muhammad Hanif respondent has already been re-instated and working in Hotel Inter-Continental, Rawalpindi. However, he contended that the petitioner would like to have an interpretation of the words "more than ten days" as they appear in Order 15 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The relevant provision of clause (e) sub-order (3) of Order 15 of the Standing Orders is reproduced below:-

"(e) habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than ten days;"

On facts it will be noted that the case of the petitioner is that the respondent Muhammad Hanif was absent for more than ten days w.e.f. 7-6-1981. The charge-sheet was issued to him on 17-6-1981. It was received by the employee on 17-6-1981 as conceded by the learned counsel though according to the record it was received by him on 20-6-1981. A simple calculation would indicate that the charge-sheet was issued on the 11th day of the alleged absence. This would mean that the charge-sheet pertains to only his absence from 7-6-1981 to 16-6-1981 i.e. ten days in all. A bare reading of the relevant provision which defines misconduct would indicate that the intention of law was to make absence without leave for more than ten days punishable, and not absence of just ten days. The words "more than ten days" mean exceeding ten days. These words are clear in meaning and admit of no ambiguity. The words "more than ten days" would not mean absence of just ten days but would mean eleven days. The charge-sheet could therefore, have been issued on the twelveth day and not on the eleventh p day. The use of the word "more" indicates the intention of Legislature that the absence without leave, in order to be punishable as misconduct, should be of at least eleven days and not just ten days.

4. In view of the above, we find that the orders of Labour Court No.6, dated 27-2-1982 and that of the Tribunal, dated 25-10-1982 were perfectly legal and with jurisdiction. This petition has, therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

M. I.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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