Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑39 of 1984, heard on 16th October, 1984.

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

‑‑‑S. 15(3)(e)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Absence for more than ten days‑‑Workman an office‑bearer of trade union of workers applying for 3 months leave and granted leave for one month with warning that no further extension would be allowed‑‑Sending application for extension of leave from home town stating to have met an accident and admitted in Civil Hospital‑ Application accompanied by Medical Certificate of a Private Practitioner‑‑ Asked to appear before Civil Surgeon and sent a draft of 60 rupees towards fee for medical examination but failing to appear before Civil Surgeon‑‑Penalty of dismissal from service on established charge of absence for more than 10 days imposed‑‑Labour Court coming to conclusion that there was no accident and Medical Certificate was of doubtful character‑‑Contentions before Appellate Tribunal that impugned penalty was outcome of victimization for trade union activities and non- impartiality of Enquiry Officer‑‑No circumstances indicative of such contentions‑‑Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed.

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

‑‑‑S.O. 150)(e) & 15(4)‑‑Charge‑sheet‑‑Limitation‑‑Absence of more than ten days‑‑A continuing charge‑‑Management can calculate period of absence from any date after absence of ten days till absence continues.

Ali Amjad for Appellant. Riaz Hussain Baloch for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1984.

This is an appeal against the impugned order of IIIrd Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 1‑2‑1984.

2. The facts of this appeal are that one Gulla Khan had filed a grievance application under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, for reinstate ment and the back benefits. The appellant Gulla Khan was a permanent workman in the employment of the respondents, namely, Pakistan Aluminium & Industrial Works Ltd., since 13‑3‑1975. The appellant had formed Azad Mazdoor Union on 15‑10‑1982, and was elected as its President. Such an intimation was sent to the respondents by a letter, dated 17‑10‑1982. The allegation is that this fact annoyed the management who regularly led out threats to the appellant as well as to the other members of the newly‑formed Labour Union. The facts are that the appellant applied for leave for 3 months from 1‑6‑1983 to 1‑9‑1983, as per his application at Exh. A‑2. The management granted leave for one month with a warning that no further extension would be granted to him. The appellant was to report for duty on 1‑7‑1983. He sent letter, Exh. A‑3 which was undated to the management from his village that he met with an accident and that he was admitted in Civil Hospital, Topi, for treatment and was advised rest for one month. The letter was accompanied by a medical certificate, dated 29‑6‑1983, issued by a private physician, one Abdul Hameed Afridi. The medical certificate recited certain multi-abrasions and contusions. The management replied to this letter and medical certificate pointing out the contradictions that he was admitted in Hospital whereas the certificate is from a private doctor. He was advised to appear before the Civil Surgeon, Mardan, for his medical examination for which a Draft of Rs.60 was sent as the fee. However, he did not appear before the Civil Surgeon and reported for duty on 3‑8‑1983. He further stated in a letter that he was refused by the Civil Surgeon to examine him, therefore, an enquiry was ordered and was held under Standing Order 15(3)(e) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, which resulted in his dismissal. Hence, he filed the grievance application on three grounds, firstly, that the enquiry officer, one Younas Shaikh was not impartial; secondly, that he was victimized on account of trade union activities; and thirdly, that the extension of leave was not formerly rejected.

3. The learned counsel for the parties argued at length. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the charge‑sheet, dated 3‑8‑1983, is time‑barred. On the factual aspects, he has also argued and he was replied by the counsel for the management.

4. I have perused the order of the learned Lower Court. Considering all the facts, the Lower Court has come to the conclusion that he met with no accident and that the medical certificate as dispatched by the appellant from Topi is of a doubtful character. The appellant did not appear before the Civil Surgeon, Mardan, although a Draft of Rs.60 'was sent to him by the management. The Lower Court concluded from various aspects of the facts as alleged by the appellant that it is not fact that he was actually met with an accident and that he remained, absent from duty for more than 10 days. There is nothing wrong in the conclusion of the Lower Court as regards the facts of this case. The Draft of Rs.60 was sent by the management which shows goon intention of the management. The appellant granted leave to himself without respecting the warning of the management that no further leave will be extended to him. I concur with the findings of the Lower Court on the factual aspects of this case.

5. As regards the contention that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred, paragraph 6 of the impugned order clears it. The appellant took the plea that the charge‑sheet was barred by time. The 10 days of absence, if calculated from 1‑7‑1983 would be 1‑7‑1983 to 10‑7‑1983. The charge- sheet, dated 3‑8‑1983 was, therefore, within time. It was observed by the learned Lower Court that the absence from duty was a continuing absence and as such the management could calculate the period of absence from any date, say from 20‑7‑1983 to 31‑7‑1983. This position was not replied affectively by the counsel for the appellant I agree with the learned Lower Court.

6. There is no material worthwhile as regard the partiality of Younus Sheikh or as regards the activities of Azad Mazdoor Union. No circum stances are shown to indicate that this is a case of victimization. I agree with the learned Lower Court and dismiss the appeal, vide Order dated 16‑10‑1984.

A. E.

Appeal 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.