1981 PLP 654 (PLC(CS))

S. O. 15 (3)(d)‑Absence from duty‑‑Workman proceeding on sanc tioned leave‑‑Making application from home town for extension --Leave extended with clear mention that no further extension would be granted ‑‑ Making still another application for extension-- Extension neither granted nor its rejection communicated‑Work man remaining absent and after such absence coming back-- Explanation on plea of sickness quite different from that men tioned in application for extension of leave‑Plea, held, rightly rejected by Enquiry Officer and workmen, held, rightly punished for wilful absence. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant. Date of hearing : 26th January, 1981. The appellant, who was employed as a double sider in the Ring Department of the respondent‑Mills was dismissed from service with effect from 22nd November 1978, on the charge of being unauthorisedly absent from his duties with effect from 2nd September, 1978. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition on the ground that it had been duly established in. domestic enquiry, which was fairly and properly held, that the appellant had remained absent without leave with effect from 2nd September, 1978, on which date he. was required to report for duty on the expiry of his sanctioned leave. 2. It was contended by Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was originally sanctioned leave with effect from 19th June 1978 to 18th August 1978 for the purposes of going to his home place. The learned counsel further submitted that it is not disputed that the appellant was granted extension of leave from 19th August, 1978 to 1st September 1978. He, however, submitted that the appellant had admittedly applied for further extension of leave, which application was marked by the Management to the appellant's superiors for report but no report was submitted to the Management and, therefore, the second application of the appellant had not been duly considered nor was it rejected by the Management. The short answer to this submission is that the gravamen of misconduct with which the appellant was charged was absence without leave for a period exceeding ten days, falling under sub-clause (e) of clause (3) of Standing Order 15. It is not disputed by the appellant that he was not granted leave after the expiry of the extension of his leave upto 1st September, 1978. In fact while extending the original leave granted to the appellant, the Management had made it clear to the appellant that no further extension of leave would be granted to him. There is also another aspect of the matter which deserves notice. In his second application for the extension of leave which either bears the date 12th or the 13th of September, 1978, the reason given by the appellant for applying for extension of leave was the construction of his house which had fallen down due to rain. In fact this was also the reason given by him for his applying for extension of leave with effect from 19th August, 1978 to 1st September, 1978. However, on his return to Karachi, he submitted another application, dated 27th September, 1978, wherein he has given a totally different reason for his failure to attend to his duties with effect from 2nd September, 1978. In this application, the reason given by him for his absence is that he had fallen ill. The appellant not only gave a different explanation for his absence from duties but further, attempted to support that application by means of an alleged medical certificate. That medical certificate was rightly rejected both by the, Enquiry Officer and the learned Labour Court. In the first place, the' certificate does not bear the signature of the Doctor by whom it purports to have been issued but bears only some initials. Secondly, apart from the fact that the certificate is in respect of one Rao Khan, which is the name of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the certificate is in respect of the appellant. Furthermore it is not shown front what ailment the person, in respect of whom the certificate was issued, was suffering. This fact, coupled with the fact that his two applications for leave the appellant had given a totally different explanation for his absence from duties with effect from 19th August, 1978, clearly indicate that the alleged plea of the appellant that he had fallen sick is without substance and is false. It has been my experience in a number of cases that workers proceeding to Hazara District and surrounding areas invari ably over‑stay their leave and take the plea of sickness. Most of these persons produce certificates allegedly signed by Dr. Juma Khan. These certificates appear to be in a cyclostyle form. In any case, in the instant case, I am satisfied that the appellant not only remained absent without leave with effect from tad September, 197.8 but his absence was without any proper cause. 3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine. Appeal dismissed,