FAIZ AHMED Versus OMEGA HOSIERY MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

The circumstances forming the background of this appeal are as follows:‑

2. The appellant was working as a sticher with the respondent mill. It is alleged in the petition, that the appellant was on leave without pay from 14‑3‑1991 to 27‑6‑1991. 28th June being `Friday' he reported for duty on the 29th but was not allowed to work. He protested against his wrongful removal and had received the reply to the same. It was mentioned therein that a charge- sheet for absconding from 17th March had been sent to him but had been returned undelivered.

3. The respondent had tried to serve him with a charge‑sheet on the 28th which was refused. However, later on it was passed on to him. There was a reply to the same and it was for the first time on this occasion that he intimated to the respondents that he had been apprehended by the Badin Police.

4. On the report of the Enquiry Officer the appellant was dismissed from service on 18‑8‑1991. The grievance notice was given on 26-8‑1991 and finding no satisfaction a petition was filed before the Labour Court.

5. The allegations came to be denied in the Written Reply filed by the respondent. It was urged therein that for all the months in question the appellant had remained absent from duty without any intimation to the respondents.

6. The appellant appeared as his own witness and Masood Ahmed Mirza, the Factory Manager and Syed Wasi Sajjad Jafri, the Enquiry Officer were examined on behalf of the respondents.

7. The learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the appellant had remained absent from his duty without leave commencing from 14‑3‑1991 till 29‑6‑1991. He was, therefore, guilty of misconduct within the meaning of clause 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance.

8. The appellant even in application before the Labour Court remained totally reticent about his arrest at the hands of the Badin Police. On his own showing no information in writing had been sent to the respondents as to why he was away from his duty, or asking for any leave. All that is stated by the appellate during the proceedings before the Labour Court is that he had sent an intimation through his father. The latter has not been produced.

9. At a later stage an order of the High Court granting bail to the appellant had been produced. It is dated 18‑6‑1991. There is no indication therein as to when the appellant came to be actually arrested. It is not open to a workman to remain away from duty without leave duly sanctioned. Under the circumstances he fell within the mischief of `misconduct' as defined under clause 15(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

10. The Enquiry Officer has been examined and there is nothing to show that there was anything unfair on his part while holding the enquiry. Even the appellant admits that he was absent from 14‑3‑1991 to 27‑6‑1991. The case of Mushtaq Textile Mills, Hyderabad v. Muhammad Sharif 1981 PLC 597 has no application at all, because it was found therein that absence was only for seven days. Further, the appellant in the precedent case was aware of the circumstances in regard to the apprehension of the respondents therein, as the alleged argon pertained to their own mill area, where they were working.

11. There is no merit in this appeal. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2080/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.