ABDUL AZIZ vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service by the Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). The petitioner, a former Traffic Assistant, was dismissed for unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal question was whether the dismissal was illegal due to the alleged absence of a charge sheet and the failure of the authorities to consider medical leave applications. The petitioner contended that the inquiry was conducted ex parte and that his leave applications were improperly rejected. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the petitioner had deliberately absented himself from duty after his sanctioned leave expired on 26-4-1977. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide necessary medical certificates to support his requests for leave extension, despite the issuance of a charge sheet and the conduct of a due inquiry prior to his dismissal. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' findings, affirming the dismissal and dismissing the petition.
- Whether an employee can challenge a dismissal order under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 when the dismissal is based on unauthorized absence?
- Does the failure to provide medical certificates for leave extension justify an employer's decision to dismiss an employee for absence from duty?
- Is a dismissal order valid if it follows the issuance of a charge sheet and the conduct of a due inquiry?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 11-6-1983 passed in Writ Petition 55/83.
2. The petitioner while serving as Traffic Assistant, PIA was dismissed from service vide order dated 13-11-1977 on the charge of absence from duty. The learned counsel contended before us that the petitioner had fallen sick and had been submitting leave applications on medical ground ; that ex parte inquiry was conducted and an ex parte order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner ; that the petitioner served a grievance notice to which no reply was received by him ; that thereafter the petitioner filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging his dismissal from service which was dismissed by the Punjab Labour Court per order dated 17-5-1982 appeal against which was also dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 26-10-1982 and thereafter a writ petition was filed against the said judgment of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal but the same was also dismissed by the learned High Court vide the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry against the petitioner was illegal being without a charge sheet ; that it is settled law that time does not run against an ex parte illegal and void order ; that the learned appellate Labour Tribunal did not confine itself to the question of limitation which alone was the basis of the dismissal of the case of the petitioner, and rejected the appeal on the ground that the leave applications of the petitioner were sanctioned upto 26-4-1977 only and not for the period from 27-4-1977 upto 1341-1977 which is the date of order dismissing the petitioner from service.
4. We have gone through the impugned order and find that the petitioner had deliberately absented himself from duty after the leave sanctioned up to 26-4-1977 and no application with proper medical certificate was sent by him with the result that on 13-11-1977 he was dismissed after having been issued the charge-sheet and the due inquiry. The petitioner has failed to prove that he had been submitting applications for extension of leave. Though applications Exhs. P. 15, P. 17 and P.
19 are placed on the record but no medical certificates are attached therewith. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. . Petition dismissed.