Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑215 of 1984, heard on 22nd April, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3), West Pakistan industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 15 (3) Misconduct‑‑Habitual absence‑Concept of habit involves nature and behaviour of workman and certain instances are to be proved from which habit may be spelt out‑Accused remaining once absent for about 2 months but his apology on good grounds accepted-- Remaining again absent for 2 days only‑Dismissed on charge of habitual absence‑Charge of habitual absence, in circumstances, held, not established and mere absence for 2 days did not amount to misconduct‑Dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding reinstatement with back benefits.

1984 P L C: 1471 ref.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd April, 1985.

DECISION

This appeal is against the order of Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, dated 28th August, 1984. The Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969.

2: The facts which relate to the instant appeal are that the appellant was working as Electrician with the respondents, Noor Textile Mills at Kotri. Once he remained absent from 11th August, 1982 to 2nd October, 1982, but he was excused. Then, on 16th and 17th December, 1982, he again absented from duty without any intimation so he was charge‑sheeted on 18th December, 1982. Finally after holding enquiry he was dismissed from service by order, dated 18th January, 1983. He consequently filed the grievance petition.

3. I have read the impugned order and have beard both the learned counsel. The only point involved in this matter is whether the appellant by habit or by habitual conduct absented himself without permission from duty. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that he was absent in the month of August to October but he was excused and once again he remained absent for two days and, therefore, he was deemed to be habitual absentee. This view was upheld by the Labour Court and the Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition.

4. On the other hand, it has been urged by the learned counsel Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that formation of habit requires elements which are to be proved that the appellant was habitual absentee. Onlv1 once his apology on good grounds was accepted and so he could not be called habitual absentee or habitual offender. The absence for two days does not by itself bring the appellant within the mischief of S. O. 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He has referred to 1984 P L C 1471. As a matter of fact the concept of habit involves the nature and behaviour of the appellant and certain instances are got to be proved against him and the instances should be of the nature from which his habit may be spelt out. In the instant case, I disagree with the order of the learned Labour Court and the habit is not proved. The absence of two days does not come within the mischief of Standing Order 15.

5. The result is that I accept this appeal and reinstate the appellant Nazimuddin forthwith with full 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.