1995 PLP 743 (PLC(CS))

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1995. This appeal arises from order of Sindh Labour Court No.VI, Sukkur, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant was appointed as a Cashier in the respondent Sugar Mills. On 18‑6‑1992, at the time of leaving office, he handed over an application for leave from 20‑6‑1992 to 30‑6‑1992 i.e. for 11 days to Hussain Ali Shah, Assistant Accountant who was not the leave granting authority. He then proceeded on 19‑6‑1992 to Gujrat with his family members to attend marriage of his relative. On 1‑7‑1992 the appellant claims that he rang up his office to ask for extension of leave but the phone was out of order. He then contacted Manager of Muslim Commercial Bank to inform the manager about his request that he wanted extension of leave from 30‑6‑1992 to 13‑7‑1992. After return on expiry of the period he tried to sign the Attendance Register but he was served with charge‑sheet, dated 7‑7‑1992 for a misconduct of remaining absent from duty for more than ten days. After the enquiry he was given a second show‑cause notice and dismissed from service with effect from 23‑8‑1992.

3. The Labour Court found that the dismissal order, passed against the appellant, was valid and legal and he accordingly, dismissed his grievance application.

4. The alleged leave application is not traceable and has not been produced before the Labour Court. It has, however, been admitted by the appellant that this leave application was given to an officer who was not competent to grant it as the manager was on leave and had gone away to his home‑town. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant over‑stayed even after expiry of the leave said to have been requested in the application. His excuse is that he tried to send a phone call for extension but did not succeed. The learned labour representative appearing for the appellant has pointed out that under section 8 of the Standing Orders Ordinance the order granting and rejecting leave should have been passed on the same day of presentation of the application but he has overlooked the important provision that under sub‑section (2) of section 8 the workman could only apply for leave to the employer. The Assistant Accountant was not his employer nor could he grant or refuse leave therefore section 8 does not come to the help of the appellant.

5. As for extension, the phone call which could not be got through to contact the Manager, could not be considered a substitute for the extension of leave application. This was not, therefore, the way of responsible employee to perform his duties.

6. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, rightly found him guilty of misconduct of absence without leave for more than ten days. The order of the Labour Court is, accordingly, maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2451/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.