1984 PLP 731 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ Absence from duty‑Termination of service for reasons of non‑availalilty for service for only one week‑Not sustainable‑Editors of newspaper convicted for violation of Martial Law Regulation -Sentenced to Jail but released after a week‑Termination of service order passed during their being in Jail for reasons of non‑availability for service‑Reporting for duty immediately on release from Jail‑Non‑availability for service for one week, in circumstances, held, not sufficient for sustaining termination order‑Re‑instatement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A &

37. Muhammad Akram for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 10th January, 1983. This appeal emanates from the decision, dated 8th February, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition brought by the respondent Union for certain workers was accepted and Messrs Ali Akhtar Mirza and Hamraz Ahsan were directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. Mr. Ali Akhtar Mirza was the Chief District Correspondence of Daily Pakistan Times and Mr. Hamraz Ahsan was Senior Sub‑Editor of Daily Imroze. The allegation against them was that they had violated a Martial Law regulation by taking out procession and raising slogans. Both of them were convicted and sentenced but the period of sentence is nowhere given. Neither the respondent nor the appellant disclosed what was the period. However, admittedly Mr. Ali Akhtar Mirza and Hamraz Ahsan both were released from the jail on 27th May, 1978. This is common ground that they were convicted and sentenced on 22nd May. 1978. The case of the respondent was that the punishment was withdrawn but there is no documentary evidence on the point. This is nobody's case that after being released on 27th May, 1978 they were again sent to jail. It, therefore, appears that the conviction and sentences were either withdrawn or reduced to the one already undergone. Both of them after being released reported for duty. No doubt the services of the said persons were terminated when they were in jail but since they only after five days were released and on 29th they reported for duty, the order of termination which was passed only for the reason that they were not available to perform their duties, should have been withdrawn and they reinstated in service. Non‑availability for one week was not sufficient for sustaining the order 'of termination. However, the finding of the Court that enquiry should have been held is not correct. For termination of services on the ground of non‑availability, enquiry is not necessary. The respondent's petition was, therefore, rightly accepted. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.