IQBAL AHMED KHAN Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT
DECISION
This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The appellant was employed by the respondent‑Company as a freight clerk on 22‑1‑1984. On the 8th of August 1988 he was served with a charge-sheet running into 3 pages which reads as under:‑
"It has been brought to the notice of the management that you applied for casual leave for 27 and 28 July, 1988 and the same was not recommended by your department due to pressure of work. Nevertheless, you remained absent on 27 and 28 July, 1988 and on 31st July, 1988 you submitted your application for sick leave for 27 and 28 July, 1988. This is a clear case of malingering.
We wish to recapitulate below your past record of malingering, habitual late attendance, habitual absence without leave, and other offence: ‑
On 20‑7‑1987 you were informed in writing that you were found guilty of remaining absent without leave for more than ten days from 29‑3‑1987 upto 16‑4‑1987. However, in view of the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer, lenient view was taken by the management and you escaped dismissal from service.
On 24‑8‑1987 you were informed by letter that you attended office late on 5 days during the month of July 1987. You attended office late for 43 days during 1987 and 28 days during 1988 upto‑date.
On 27‑9‑1987 you were informed in writing that your explanation regarding the irregularities committed by you in connection with your attending to your work, obtaining prior leave of absence, and following the prescribed procedure in case of sickness in respect of the periods 19‑8‑1987 to 27‑8‑1987 and 30‑8‑1987 to 2‑9‑1987, was not acceptable, and you were advised that instead of pleading sympathy, which you have had enough, you should be careful.
On 28th April, 1988 you were informed in writing that you have been found guilty of the charge of malingering for remaining absent on 24‑3‑1988 and you were reprimanded for the same.
On 21st July, 1988 you were informed in writing that you remained absent without leave on 3rd July, 1988 and you were advised to avoid habitual absence without leave. You remained absent without leave on 27 and 28 July, 1988 although you were specifically requested to attend office on these dates on account 'of pressure of work on the department.
You remained absent without leave on 2‑8‑1988. Instead of being careful as advised from time to time, you considered the flimsy ground:
"Not feeling. well" quite sufficient to stay back at home. We also note that you are in the habit of absenting yourself without leave in conjunction with declared holidays including weekly holidays, You have done so on the following dates:
(1) 1 to 4 Feb. 1987 in conjunction with 30 and 31 January, 1987.
(2) 8 and 9 Feb. 1987 in conjunction with 6 and 7 Feb. 1987.
(3) 29 March to 2 April, 1987 in conjunction with 27 and 28 March, 1987 and 3 and 4 April, 1987.
(4) 24 and 25 May, 1987 in conjunction with 22 and 23 May, 1987.
(5) 4 August, 1987 in conjunction with 5 to 8 August, 1987.
(6) 13 August, 1987 in conjunction with 14 and 15 August, 1987.
(7) 19 and 20 August and 23 to 27 August, 1987 in conjunction with 21 and 22 August and 28 and 29 August, 1987.
(8) 1 and 2 September, 1987 in conjunction with 3 to 6 September, 1987.
(9) 15 October, 1987 in conjunction with 16 and 17 October, 1987.
(10) 4 November, 1987 in conjunction witlr5 to 7 November, 1987.
(11) 15 November, 1987 in conjunction with 13 and 14 November, 1987.
(12) 29 November, 1987 in conjunction with 27, 28 and 30 November, 1987.
(13) 27 and 28 December, 1987 in conjunction with 25 and 26 December, 1987.
(14) 7 January 1988 in conjunction with 8 and 9 January, 1988.
(15) 11 to 14 January, 1988 in conjunction with 15 and 16 January, 1988.
(16) 7 February, 1988 in conjunction with 5 and 6 February, 1988.
(17) 14 to 18 February, 1988 in conjunction with 12 and 13 February and 19 and 20 February, 1988.
(18) 24 March, 1988 in conjunction with 23 March and 25 and 26 March, 1988.
(19) 30 and 31 March, 1988 in conjunction with 1 to 3 April, 1988.
(20) 3 to 5 May, 1988 in conjunction with 6 and 7 May, 1988.
(21) 10 to 12 May and 15 and 16 May, 1988 in conjunction with 13 and 14 May and 17 to 21 May, 1988.
(22) 26 June, 1988 in conjunction with 24 and 25 June, 1988.
(23) 3 July, 1988 in conjunction with 1 and 2 July, 1988.
(24) 7 and 10 July, 1988 in conjunction with 8 and 9 July, 1988.
(25) 27 and 28 July, 1988 in conjunction with 22 to 26 July and 29 and 30 July, 1988.
This indicates your mala fides that you careless for the work and that you are only interested in extending your holidays. The above acts constitute offences within the meaning of the following Standing Orders of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968:‑
(1) 15(1)(ii)(a) Disregard of orders
(2) 15(1)(ii)(d) Careless working
(3) 15(1)(ii)(e) Malingering.
(4) 15(3)(d) Habitual absence without leave.
(5) 15(3)(f) Habitual late attendance.
(6) 15(3)(j) Frequent repetition of malingering, careless working, and disregard of orders.
You are hereby called upon to explain in writing within three days of the receipt of this notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.
In case no reply is received from you within the time mentioned above, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the matter will be decided ex parte.
Yours faithfully per pro MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO.
OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.
(Sd.)
MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION).
3. The explanation submitted by the appellant was not found to be satisfactory and a domestic enquiry was ordered. It was conducted by one Subzwari who after examining one Muhammad Nawaz, Manager Administration and also the appellant recommended "further disciplinary action". The final show‑cause notice was issued on 11‑2‑1988 which was replied to on 14‑12‑1988. On the 23rd of January, 1989 the appellant was dismissed from service.
4. He sent a grievance notice, and later filed the petition, and was the only witness on his behalf. One Rustam Khursigara, Manager Personnel Administration was examined on behalf of the respondent who the relevant record.
5. The learned Presiding Officer found that the documentary evidence support of the misconduct of the appellant was overwhelming and as the allegations clearly made out misconduct, the order of dismissal unexceptionable.
6. Khursigara has produced in support of the 25 instances nit the show‑cause notice, the attendance cards with effect from July 1988, showing the appellant late, absent or on leave almost every month. He has also produced applications for sick leave on various dates. There were also letters produced showing the displeasure of the respondent behavior of the appellant and reprimands. The letters have not been denied. After all these threats and reprimands he was once proceeded against for this persistent non‑chalant behavior and irregular attendance and charge was established, he escaped punishment on the intercession Enquiry Officer.
7. So the appellant in view of these happenings should have been the guard and realised that he should have a more discreet duties but he did not mend his behavior. It is said that on the 27 th July he had made an application for the grant of two days leave to his immediate who did not recommend it due to pressure of work. The submission application is denied by the appellant and Mr. Khursigara in spite promises did not care to produce it on the record later on. Anyway there is an application for the leave of absence of 2 days on the 31st of July appellant had reported for duty. It was this wilful disobedience the issuance of the charge‑sheet.
8. The contention of Mr. Gohar Iqbal that the entire record should have been produced, is being too demanding and uncalled has been produced is more than enough to have dispensed with the long before. He was all along indifferent and casual in his approach duties and that has been abundantly proved. I do not think the earlier could be any better, but even assuming that he had been punctual and regular in attendance those days he was simply doing his duty as an employee not doing any favour to his employers.
9. The mention of trade union activities is nothing but in embellishment. The appellant was not an office‑bearer of any trade union and the bearers of the trade union admittedly had not come to any harm. There is nothing actually to show that there was any ferment or any torrid of any sort in the organization then or earlier.
10. The appellant could have avoided this fate if he so liked as been given ample opportunities to turn a new leaf in his life. The do constitute misconduct under clauses (e) and (f) of the Standing Order 151 which is punishable with dismissal. I will therefore uphold the order of Labour i Court and dismiss the appeal.
H.B.T./2045/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.