1986 PLC 185

DECISION

The instant matter is sought to be admitted in appeal against an order of Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dated 10‑12‑1984. The Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition on the grounds that the appellant was found guilty for non‑presence without authority for more than 10 days and that the petition was time‑barred.

2. The appellant was working as a driver with the respondent corporation. It appears that he absented himself from the duty without permission on 5‑10‑1982. On 11‑11‑1982, a show‑cause notice was issued against the appellant for remaining absent from 5‑10‑1982 for more than 10 days. The enquiry was completed in absence of the appellant as he could not present himself upto 26‑12‑1982, and, therefore, he was dismissed.

3. Written statement of the respondents raises the plea that the grievance petition is time‑barred, that he deliberately did not participate in the domestic enquiry; that his was not satisfactory, therefore, he was dismissed from service.

4. The evidence is read by me. A part from the evidence of Mehboob Hassan, Driver, Doctor A.H. Farooq, Doctor Nisar Ahmed and Doctor Aleem Siddiqui are examined. These doctors certified the, ailment of the appellant to be kidney disease and blood in urine. The appellant once suffered typhoid and was advised rest by Doctor Nisar Ahmed from 4‑11‑1982 to 26‑11‑1982. The evidence of doctors is read by me and in cross‑examination, they have faultered and on the face of it, it appears that the evidence of doctors is not believable and more likely these medical certificates are not enough proof to support the evidence of Mehboob Hassan, the driver. His application for leave supported by doctor was rejected on 20‑10‑1982.

5. The grievance petition was filed in the Labour Court on 5‑4‑1983, whereas he was dismissed on 16‑12‑1982. Grievance notice was, dated 3‑1‑1982, but it appears on record that the petition was filed on 5‑4‑1983. The Labour Court has considered that the grievance petition was hopelessly time‑barred.

6. The Labour Court has referred to the previous service record of the driver which was not savoury and he took leave again on one or the other ground and his performance on the whole was not satisfactory. I have heard in pre‑admission both Mr. Saleem Reza and Mr. Kamal Mansoor Alam.

There is no case of the appellant and the appeal is dismissed in limine.

A.E. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.