MANZOOR AHMED Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT,KARACHI

DECISION

The appellant was working with the respondent as an inspector in the Quality Department. He had a standing of about 15 years at the material time.

2. His case is that he was unwell in the month of October, 1988 because of backache and had through a relation made a request for the grant of leave. Medical Certificates advising rest, were sent later.

3. He did not attend the office from 13‑10‑1988 and when he reported for duty on 21‑11‑1988 he was served with a charge‑sheet beating the date of 6‑11‑1988. The reply was duly given, but the management not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the appellant, appointed Sheikh Abdul Qayum to hold the domestic enquiry. On the submission of the report he was dismissed from service on 18‑12‑1988.

4. The appellant had sent the grievance notice on 12‑3‑1989 and later filed the petition before the Labour Court.

5. The appellant appeared as his own witness while Sheikh Abdul Qayum, the Enquiry Officer and Masood Qazi appeared on behalf of the management.

6. In the petition, inter alia, it was alleged that the petitioner had been run down because of his involvement in the trade union activities, of which he had been elected the General Secretary towards the end of his service coreer. These allegations came to be repudiated. There were assertions that the petition filed before the Court was time‑barred and that even the alleged Medical Certificate had never been received by the respondent.

7. The Labour Court repelled the contention in regard to the bar of limitation, but coming to the conclusion that the absence which was beyond a period of 10 days was unauthorised, dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.

8. The controversy in regard to the despatch of the show‑cause notice at the address of the appellant on the record of the appellant has hardly any significance in the circumstances of the case. Nor the fact, as to whether the Medical Certificates had been at all received by the respondent. It might however be mentioned that the appellant could not at any stage let fall as to who was the person entrusted with the mission of making the verbal request of leave on his behalf.

9. Admittedly the appellant did not care to pen down even a line in regard to his ailment and asking for the grant of leave of absence from his duty. The certificates, which are 3 in number do not go beyond mentioning that the appellant was suffering from backache. There are no X‑ray reports or any further particulars beyond this. No prescription has either been put on the record.

10. All that the appellant had to say was that he had made a verbal request for leave through somebody. The said emissary has not been produced at all. He could hardly be permitted to arrogate such a non‑chalant attitude while he was serving a company. Not only that an application has to be made, but it had to be granted‑also, though there might be cases where a worker may not be in a position to report for duty or ask for leave for circumstances beyond his control. And that would not constitute misconduct. This was the view taken also in the case of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Ghulam Abbas 1982 PLC page 166. The instant case certainly is not covered 1, up by the view taken in the said case. To keep off from work for weeks together without an application and later return armed with a Medical Certificate of this nature is not enough.

11. There is nothing to indicate even remotely that there was any agitational activity of any sort among the workers, or that axe had fallen on the appellant because the respondents were nursing any grievance. It cannot therefore, be said that there is mala fides or colourable exercise of authority. Nor fault is to be found with the conduct of the enquiry proceedings.

In the result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

H.B.T./2101/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.