Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. KAR‑170 and 172 of 1.984, heard on 31st March, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Scope of S. 25‑A‑All matters connected with domestic enquiry are to be considered and matter to be decided properly and justly‑Grievance petition against dismissal for miscon duct of absence‑Accused remaining absent for 17 days and 8 days in two consecutive months‑Explanation that there being none else he had to attend to his seriously ill father in Hospital and certificate to that effect produced‑Domestic enquiry ignoring such certificate for reasons that it related to illness of father and not of accused Circumstances of case, held, enough to change findings of domestic enquiry‑Domestic enquiry set aside by Labour Court due to facts invoking compassionate grounds and‑ dictum of natural justice-- Management allowed option to treat period involved as leave because accused had not availed of leave during 8 years of service‑Order of Labour Court awarding reinstatement and disallowing back benefits, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Kamal Mansoor Alam for Appellant.

Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 31st March, 1985.

This order would dispose of two appeals, one against respondent, Rafiq Ahmed Jokhio where the management is the appellant, while the second is with regard to the appellant, Rafiq Ahmed Jokhio v. The Manage ment. In the first appeal' the impugned order is that Rafiq Ahmed Jokhio be reinstated and in the second was that he would not get the back benefits.

2. The facts briefly stated are that Rafiq Ahmed Jokhio was an employee of Pakistan Steel since 1974 and according to him he had brilliant service record. He was Coke Pusher Operator and then got Foreign training in the same trade. He received show‑cause notice for absence from duty in all for 17 days in the month of July, 1981 and 8 days in the month of August, 1981. An enquiry was held by the management which resulted in the dismissal of Rafiq Ahmed Jokhio.

3. The case of Raiq Ahmed Jokhio was that he could not attend the duty because his father was mental cripple and often he convulsed like the symptoms of gilopsy and was admitted in Ziauddin Hospital Such a certificate he produced before the management while in the enquiry but the management did not consider it. He was not an habitual absentee and he has served the management for 8 years without taking any leave. He prayed that his absence may be considered as leave. However, the management thought it fit to dismiss him. He made an application on compassionate grounds for reinstatement in an appeal to the management but his appeal was rejected. He, therefore, filed the grievance petition.

4. The point of limitation was raised by the learned counsel of the management. The matter was heard by the learned Labour Court and the petition was dismissed on the point of limitation. In appeal, this Tribunal remanded the case for rehearing and held that the grie vance petition was in time. Thereafter, the matter proceeded before the Labour Court and the decision was that he was reinstated with no back benefits.

5. 1 have heard in this respect the counsel, Mr. Kamal Mansoor Alam for the management and Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed for Rafiq Ahmed Jokhio. I have gone through the impugned order and have also gone through the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The matter was very simple. The section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, contemplates that all the matters connected with the enquiry are to be considered and the matter is to be decided properly and justly. In the enquiry, the Medical Certificate is produced by Rafiq Ahmed Jokhio that his father was admitted in Ziauddin Hospital for a serious ailment due to paralysis which ailment was sudden. He was to attend his father in the hospital. The Medical certificate was not considered by the Enquiry Officer because the certifi cate related to his father and not to the employee. The fact that he attended his father in the hospital and the fact that he was alone and there was none else to attend his father is a fact to be considered by the Enquiry Officer. This fact alone was considered by the Labour Court which came to the conclusion that there is no fault committed by the worker. These circumstances are enough to change the findings of the domestic enquiry. These circumstances are also enough to grant him leave with pay or without pay as the case may be because for the last 8 years he did not enjoy the leave. The conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court is fair, proper and just. In this context it is not possible to differ from the Labour Court and his order for reinstatement of the worker was appropriate.

6. In these circumstances I dismiss the appeal of the management and maintain the order of the learned Labour Court.

7. So far the back benefits are concerned, I find that the Labour Court did not award the back benefits to him because the enquiry held against him was set aside due to the facts which invoked the compassionate grounds and the dictum of natural justice. However, he has given option to the management to consider leave as the worker has not availed leave for all the years of his employment. The back benefits are accordingly refused to the worker. I also maintain this order of the learned Labour Court.

8. Both the appeals stand respectively dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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