ABDUL BAQI Versus MESSRS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AHMAD C0. LTD.

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 5‑6‑1983, passed by Sind Labour Court No. VI Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was in the service of the respondent establishment as a salesman. On 29‑5‑1981; the appellant granted leave upto 25‑6‑1982 for visiting India. After expiry of the leave, the appellant did not resume his duties but through a telegram had sought an extension of leave for 15 days on the ground of illness of his mother. Thereafter, on 31‑7‑1982, the appellant had resumed his duties had also submitted a Medical Certificate issued from Doctor at Sherpur (India) in support of the illness of his mother. Then, the appellant was charge‑sheeted for remaining absent unauthorisedly with effect from 26‑6‑1982 to 30‑7‑1982. As the reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted. However, the enquiry was ex‑parte as the appellant had failed to appear before the enquiry officer. Ultimately as the misconduct of the appellant was established in the said enquiry, therefore, he was dismissed from service and being aggrieved with this order the appellant approached the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, further the appellant had claimed that he was made a victim on account of his legitimate trade union activities.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the ground that it was incorrect to say that the appellant was victimised on account of his trade union activities, when it is an established; fact that he was dismissed from service mainly on account of remaining absent without sanctioned leave or an intimation, particularly with effect from 5‑8‑1983 till 27‑8‑1983. Therefore, his dismissal from service was quite justified, hence he could not maintain his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition, hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment, while none was present on behalf of the appellant. It is an admitted position that the appellant was a salesman engaged on commission basis and had to sell different varieties of Cigarettes in an assigned particular area. Reliance in this behalf is placed on 1980 P L C 622. Thereafter, in view of this legal admitted position, the appellant was not a workman and consequently was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O 1969.

6. As regards the merits of the case, it is again admitted position that the appellant had himself remained absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 days and had deliberately avoided to participate in the domestic enquiry for which he should thank himself. The appellant had miserably failed to either justify his absence from duties, or to establish the genuineness of his absence from the duties, I would B therefore, hold that his dismissal from service on this was quite correct and there is nothing wrong with the impugned order.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S.Q./1021/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed