MIR AFSAR Versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

This appeal arises from the decision dated 24‑1‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for setting aside the punishment of W. I. T. and treating the period from 23‑11‑1978 to 22‑10‑1979 as leave without pay, was dismissed.

2. The appellant was sanctioned leave for four months and after its expiry he applied through telegram for extension of leave to further four months. He did not receive any information about the rejection or extension of leave. When he reported for duty on 28‑10‑1979 he was not given duty and was delivered a letter to obtain from the Police certificate of good behaviour. He did the needful but was, instead of being given duty, asked to bring fitness certificate from the Railways doctor. He complied with it: In spite of all this the whole period from the date of extension of leave up to 22‑10‑1979 he was treated as on leave without pay, after being given charge‑sheet Exh. R‑1 dated 3‑5‑1979 and after getting its reply. No enquiry was held.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued. that the appellant was not justified to apply for leave by telegram. He should have, according to him, came in person and made application for extension of leave. The argument is without force. But even if for the sake of 'arguments, the argument is accepted, the question arises was the appellant informed about the rejection of leave and direction to apply for extension in person? Admittedly, he was not so informed. This is not the case of the respondent that the leave was not due or there was any emergency. So in normal circumstances extension of leave should have been allowed or at least the appellant informed .about the rejection. In Exh. R‑13 the receipt of telegram is admitted, so it cannot be said that no telegram was received.

4. Another question arises as to why the appellant was not given duty when on 23‑10‑1979 he reported for duty? Action may have been taken even if the Railway wanted to, proceed against the appellant but what was the hindrance in not allowing to do duty, it seems that some person may have been appointed in the leave vacancy and he was desired to be continued in service. '

5. So far as imposition of penalty is concerned, I am at a loss to understand what fault the appellant had committed, except this that he was in need of further leave and he by a telegram had requested for it. Was it a misconduct? If leave is applied for and no information about its rejection is received, the employee concerned is justified in believing that it has been sanctioned.

6. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision and the order of penalty imposed upon the appellant, hold that he is entitled to full average pay for the period of four months leave up to 24‑11‑1978 and full pay with all allowances from 25‑11‑1978 to 24‑10‑1979 and will be treated on duty during the said period.

Appeal accepted.