MUHAMMAD YASEEN Versus DEPUTY MANAGER (S & M), HFF ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
DECISION
The appellant was appointed as a Driver for the Liaison Office of the respondents at Karachi on 30‑1‑1978. On 1‑6‑1988, he was served with a `show -cause notice' as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him as he habitually remained absent from duty without information/prior permission of the competent authorities in spite of repeated warnings. Then a few dates were specified namely 28‑4‑1988, 11‑5‑1988 to 14‑5‑1988, 16‑5‑1988 and 23‑5‑1988 to 26‑5‑1988.
2. The appellant replied to the same but the respondents were not satisfied and after holding an enquiry, dismissed him from service vide order, dated 31‑10‑1988. There was a Departmental Appeal and later the appellant had served the grievance notice. A reply is alleged to have been given but that has not been put on the record. Then a petition was filed in the Labour Court.
3. The petitioner was his own witness and two witnesses namely (1) Zamirul Haq, the Deputy Manager of the factory at Taxila and (2) Babu Khan, the Assistant Manager (Legal) were examined on behalf of the respondents.
4. The Labour Court overruled the plea of the bar of limitation as canvassed in the Reply Statement and evidence but, finding that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and was in the habit of remaining absent from duty un authorisedly, dismissed the petition.
5. In the Written Reply filed by the respondents there was no plea taken in regard to the non‑maintainability of the petition on the ground that the number of the employees in the said Liaison Office/Sales Office was short of even ten. However a cross‑objection was filed here, and would be in order as the respondents having won the round before the Labour Court could, not prefer any appeal against the same.
6. On his own showing the appellant throughout his service career with respondents, had remained posted at Karachi. When he joined the office there were only four employees here‑‑the main factory is at Taxila. He had again candidly admitted that at the time of his removal from service there were only eight to ten employees. The other employees working at the factory or else where, if there are `other display centres ag well, have to be kept out of consideration, because all these will be separate entities as laid down in the case of Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLC 1974 page‑l941. That will be enough to dispose of the appeal. However other points raised might as well be concisely examined.
7. It was contended by Mr. Latif Saghar, learned counsel for 'the appellant that as per charge‑sheet only ten days of unauthorised absence had been specified. That would make neither ten continuous days nor establish habitual absence, as the period in question was, limited to two months only. Reference was made to the case of Amin Fabrics Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1985 PLC 764 wherein it has been held that there should be a series of acts of remaining absent without leave, and spread over the entire period of service. I am humbly of the opinion that the principles laid down are of no assistance to the appellant, because apart from the ten days specifically mentioned, the show‑cause notice expressly states that he was in the habit of remaining absent from duty without the permission of the competent authority and in spite of repeated warnings and advices had failed to mend his habit.
8. Even in the Written Reply, which was filed by Zamirul Haq, out of innumerable instances as he put it of unauthorised absences, he had filed a number of documents namely‑‑letter Of Advice, dated 17‑9‑19;8 (Annexure R‑1), Memo dated 8‑10‑1979 (Annexure R‑2), show‑cause notice, dated 29‑10‑1979 (Annexure R‑3), strict warning letter, dated 23‑1‑1980 (Annexure R‑4), three letters of Advice, dated 4‑5‑1981, 2‑2‑1982 and 19‑7‑1982 (Annexures R‑5, R‑6 and R‑7 respectively), Memo of advice, dated 25‑9‑1983 (Annexure R‑8), show‑cause notice, dated 21‑5‑1984 (Annexure R‑9), Enquiry letter, dated 14‑6‑1984 (Annexure R‑10), Final warning, dated 7‑3‑1985 (Annexure‑‑ R‑11), show‑cause notice, dated 17‑7‑1986 (Annexure R‑12) and Warning Letter, dated 8‑9‑1986 (Annexure R‑13). The appellant also, in his cross‑examination, admitted the receipt of these letters and owned to have submitted Annexures R‑15 and R‑16, which were sent by him to the respondents. R‑15 was his reply to the show‑cause notice. He had stated Therein that he had remained absent on the days specifically mentioned in the show‑cause notice because he was busy with the construction of his house. In this communication he had begged to be excused over this unauthorised absence which will not be repeated hereafter. The same he ‑had said in the Departmental Appeal wherein he had prayed for the reduction of the penalty. All this is enough to show that the requirements of Standing Order 15(3)(e) stood fully established.
9. It was also argued by Mr. Latif Saghar, learned counsel for the appellant, that the Enquiry Officer had personal knowledge about the alleged wayward conduct of the appellant and therefore could not be said to be independent or impartial. What was more, he had commenced the enquiry with the recording of the statement of the appellant before recording the statements of witnesses on behalf of the management.
10. As is to be seen, his knowledge was based only on documents that 'have been produced. Babu Khan has also clarified that Mr. Khairy, the complainant was unwell those days. As it was just a question of producing and referring to some dates, when the appellant had remained absent, not examining him could cause no bias or prejudice. The circumstances do not permit any inference to be drawn that the respondents bore him any grudge. Instead all the allegations which are the subject‑matter of the charge‑sheet are admitted by the appellant himself.
I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
A.A./2087/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.