1986 PLP 192 (PLC)

Nemo for appellant. Sher Malik for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th September, 1985. This appeal arises against the order, dated 27‑2‑1983, whereby Sind Labour Court No.III, Karachi, has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, Umer Rahim.

2. Umer Rahim, who is the appellant in this case was engaged as a weaver in the respondent mills. He had applied for leave for 3 months from 18‑5‑1982 to 18‑8‑1982. The request was rejected and an order was passed Exh. 1‑A that two months leave without pay was granted from 18‑5‑1982 to 17‑7‑1982. The appellant was to report for duty on 18‑7‑1982, but he did not report for duty. The appellant has claimed that he had sent an application, dated 7‑7‑1982 for extension of leave upto 18,8‑1982. He could not get any reply from the respondents whether the leave was granted or rejected, but he presumed that the leave was granted. He then availed of it. He was charge‑sheeted on 15‑8‑1982 that he remained absent without permission for one month. His explanation to the charge‑sheet was rejected. Mr. Fayyaz was appointed as an Enquiry Officer who after the enquiry dismissed the appellant on 22‑9‑1982.

3. The stand taken by the respondents is that the leave for 3 months was specifically refused and he was granted leave only for two months. But, for succeeding months, he remained absent without intimation. His application for extension of leave was rejected and the same was sent by registered A/D post directing the appellant to report for duty immediately.

4. I have heard Mr. Malik Sher, the learned representative for the respondents and Mr. M.M.Jeelani, the learned counsel for the appellant was absent s4 also the appellant. The order of the learned Labour Court was perused The only point involved in this case is that whether mere submission of the application for extension of leave, can be presumed in law as having been granted. This presumption is wrong. The appellant was not entitled to grant leave to himself without the same being granted. In case it is rejected then he has to report for duty immediately. The evidence on record has come that he received the reply for rejecting the leave on 4‑8‑1982. This was his duty to report immediately after the receipt of the letter. He remained absent and granted leave to himself. Such availing of leave is illegal and the Labour Court has rightly pointed out that he is aware of the law or the rules that the presumption could be raised that the leave was, under these circumstances, would be deemed to have been granted'. The leave was actually rejected and the appellant had no right to presume otherwise. His absence was unauthorised and he comes within the mischief of Standing Order

15. The arguments put forward in the memo. of appeal is that his side was closed and his application for re‑opening the side was rejected by the Labour Court. This is no ground for allowing his appeal.

5. In view that mere submission of an application for leave does not mean or imply that the leave has been granted. The fact that he did not receive any intimation, it should be deemed that the leave was rejected. This appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed. A. E. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.