1986 PLP 376 (PLC)

Masood Shaikh for Respondent Date of hearing: 10th November, 1985. The instant appeal is directed against the order of Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, dated 17‑2‑1985. The Labour Court had dismissed the petition of the appellant filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. 2 The facts are that the appellant was appointed as an Electric Helper on 15‑2‑1983. He applied for one month's leave on account of his mother's illness but was granted leave from 16‑7‑1983, for 20 days only. From his village he sought an extension for another 12 days which was not granted and he was to return on 18‑8‑1983. It is alleged that he did not return after the applied leave of 12 days as he fell ill. It is said that he informed the management by a telegram. On 5‑9‑1983, he approached the respondent mills for duty but he was not permitted. He was served with a charge‑sheet on 1‑10‑1983, which was replied by him on 4‑10‑1983. An enquiry was instituted but the appellant did not show confidence in the Enquiry Officer, Mirza Safdar Baig, so Mr. Muhammad Khalil was appointed Enquiry Officer. The allegation is that he was not allowed to contest in the enquiry and ultimately, he was dismissed on 19‑12‑1983.

3. The stand taken by the respondent in its reply statement is that only 20 days' leave was granted to the appellant. The extension of 12 days was not granted and it was pleaded that the appellant never attempted to join duty and since he was absent from 18‑8‑1983, without sanctioned leave and intimation whatsoever, he was dismissed.

4. In support of the case the appellant examined himself while Messrs Khalil' Ahmad, Jamaluddin and one Moulvi Mehmood were examined on behalf of the respondent‑management.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Abdul Khaliq G. Khan and Mr. Masood Shaikh Advocate, for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant has made vague attempt that he gave a telegraphic message for the extension of 12 days' leave. He could not lead any evidence to show that telegraphic message was actually given or sent to the management. So far these 12 days are concerned, there is no evidence to show that he made any attempt to seek leave. As regards the remaining period, the contention of the appellant was that he was gate‑stopped and one Moulvi Mahmood stated that he took the appellant to Labour Officer but subsequently he was not admitted even to attend in the enquiry proceedings.

6. In nutshell after hearing the arguments, it is established that the appellant did not return from leave on 18‑8‑1983 nor, thereafter, on 30‑8‑1983. More than 10 days passed after the date 30‑8‑1983 but he did not return. The enquiry against him regarding his absence appears to be amply proved. Even the evidence of Moulvi Mahmood does not help him much. It is an admitted fact that the appellant proceeded on 20 days leave with an undertaking that he would not get the leave extended. It is also borne but from the record that he sought extension for 12, days so he was to join duty at the best on 18‑8‑1983. The burden was on the appellant to prove that his absence was not wilful and that he kept the management informed of the difficulties which compelled him to remain absent. There is hardly an evidence to account for his absence and as such I agree with the learned Labour Court and maintain the impugned order. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed