ATIQA NAZEER Versus A.E.G. PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are as follows.

2. The appellant was employed with the respondents as Assistant Accountant for some years. On 28‑4‑1988 she was served with a `charge‑sheet' stating therein that she was habitual absentee without leave and had also remained absent without leave for more than ten days at a stretch from 17‑4‑1988 to 28‑4‑1988 which constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 15(3)(e) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. She was therefore called upon to explain within three days as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her.

3. She furnished the reply but as the Management was not satisfied enquiry proceedings were ordered. The enquiry was conducted by one Mr. Matiur Rehman, who in the report submitted by him had recommended disciplinary action. There was a second show‑cause notice, dated 21‑7‑1988 which was replied to on 2‑8‑1988. She was dismissed from service and the dismissal order, dated 7‑8‑1988, according to the respondents, was personally delivered to her on the next day when she reported in the Office.

4. She had served the `grievance notice' dated 19‑12‑1988, which was followed by a "grievance petition" before the Labour Court No. III.

5. The petitioner alleged therein, that she had applied for leave for the period in question and the same had been regularised by the `Competent Authority' without pay. She went on to say that on 8‑8‑1988 she has approached a colleague by the name Shakeel who directed her to approach Tauseef Ahmad Khan and it was under his direction that she had filled in the application form asking for a day's leave and left for home. It was alleged that because of the mental torture received, and because of the unsympathetic attitude of the respondents she had premature `delivery' on 9‑8‑1988.

6. It went on to say that she had reported for duty on 8‑11‑1988 and it was on that date that she had been served with the `dismissal order'. In the written reply, inter alia, a specific plea was taken that the `grievance notice' was time‑barred and, therefore, the petition would not lie.

7. The appellant was her only witness and the witnesses on behalf of the management were Motiur Rehman, the Enquiry Officer and one Tauseef Ahmad Khan.

8. The learned Presiding Officer found that the `grievance notice' was time‑barred and the petition was, therefore, not maintainable. He also found that the misconduct had been duly substantiated on the record. The petition was, therefore dismissed.

9. On the appellant's own showing, the grievance notice was despatched on 19‑12‑1988. The appellant also admits to have received the order of dismissal personally, which bears her signatures. The date under her signature is 8‑8‑1988. Patently this means more than 90 days and it is here that the rub comes in.

10. However, the version of the appellant is that the date is not in her handwriting. She was given the order on 8‑11‑1988 when she reported for duty after 3 months from 8‑8‑1988.

11. On 8‑8‑1988 she had made an application for leave for one day. She states now that she had been over wrought with the charge‑sheet and inquiry and she was hospitalised on 9‑8‑1988 because of miscarriage. There are no applications forthcoming for all these three months and it would be surprising indeed, that the respondent after having decided to dispense with her services, would not muster courage to despatch the letter at her home address for full three months, and wait for her arrival as she alleges, on 8‑11‑1988. There is not a shred of a document in support of the fact that she was hospitalised in the circumstances she alleges. No construction can therefore be simply placed on the averment'. It will also be inconceivable that an. Organisation of repute would stoop so low as to falsify the document. The Written Reply specifically mentioned that the service of the order was on the 8th of August. She could have examined a handwriting expert which she did not. The grievance notice is clearly beyond time as found by the Labour Court and that would be the end, of the matter.

12. As far the merit of the case, even the appellant in her cross- examination admits that she was absent on the days mentioned in the charge -sheet. All that has been attempted to show is that on the 26th of April, 1988 at 6‑30 p.m. she had communicated a message to a colleague of hers by the name of Tariq about the mishap in the family and also sent a letter to the company, which is not there. On her own showing, it will be very non‑chalant approach to take. The application for leave is presented by her after she reports after 28‑4‑1988. The record also bears out that she would apply for leave after enjoying her unauthorised absence. There can be no manner of doubt that misconduct has been substantiated within the meaning of Standing Order 15(3)(e).

13. I would, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2062/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.