ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court, Karachi allowing the application of the respondent under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The circumstances forming the background of this case in short are as follows:‑‑

The petitioner was working with the appellant company as a sample-man from November 1987 and his services were confirmed on 12‑10‑1988. It is' alleged that on 26th of April, 1991 near about the mid‑day while he was still working at the factory he was verbally told that his services stood terminated. On the 2nd of May he had therefore served a grievance notice. The reply received was to the effect that his services had not been terminated but it was he himself who had absconded from the 27th of March, 1991. There was also a threat conveyed that if he did not resume duty legal action would be considered against him. Later on the petition was filed in the Labour Court. In the Written Reply apart from other things the charge of absconscion from duty was repeated.

2. The petitioner was his own witness and Anis Umar Nagda Production Manager of the factory appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of service was unlawful and therefore allowed the application with back benefits.

4. The only question for consideration in this case is whether it was the petitioner who left the employment out of his free will and volition or he was elbowed out unceremoniously as alleged. Nothing worthwhile could be elicited in cross‑examination of the petitioner and it has been clearly stated by Nagda that though the respondent was absent from duties no charge‑sheet had been issued against him. Nor there was any letter either. Sending a letter to report on duty or issuing a charge‑sheet for absence would have been the normal course to adopt but nothing of this sort was considered even after the respondent had been served with this grievance notice. As for the assertion that the respondent had deserted the job, there is no earthly reason as to why he should have pursued the matter so assiduously. During the course of argument here when the appellant had shown willingness to take back the respondent he had accompanied the Director present here, without even looking back and remains working even now.

5. We cannot simulate what the real situation was but there is no reason to distrust the version as furnished by the respondent. The rival version that the respondent was absent does not find any support from the circumstances as brought on the record.

6. In the result I will uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal The respondent had been taken back by the appellant from the 9th of December, 1992. He will be therefore entitled to back benefits from 26‑4‑1991 up to 9th December, 1992.

Orders accordingly.

H.B.T./2170/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed