1986 PLP 405 (PLC)

This appeal arises out of an order of Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, dated 17‑10‑1984. The Labour Court had dismissed the grievance application of one Naseeb Shah the Assistant Station Master, Dadu.

2. The facts are re‑counted and it makes a bulky story that the appellant who was a Station Master at Bubak Railway Station and he was reverted as Assistant Station Master in N.P.S.

7. This order of reversion was set aside by the Labour Court and he was re‑instated. Again, there was an enquiry and his services were terminated but the learned Labour Court once again re‑instated him. The Labour Court gave an opportunity to Railway Department to hold an enquiry within three months. This what was in the past. Then, suddenly the appellant is said to have fallen ill on 27‑9‑1982. He was then posted at Malir Railway Station, Karachi. For two months, he was said to be sick and he was treated by a Doctor at Landhi Korangi Dispensary. However, he was required to produce Medical Certificate of a Medical Officer of the Railway Department. He failed to produce the medical certificate of Railway Department. But, ultimately he succeeded in producing the Fitness Certificate of the Medical Officer, Pakistan Railways and reported for duty for the first time on 1‑12‑1982.

3. The grievance petition was contested by the Railway Department and they stated that on 27‑9‑1982, he suddenly reported that he has fallen ill and he handed over the charge himself. He did not go to the Medical Officer at Cantonment Railway Station which was only 10 miles from Malir, but he chose to get a certificate from Doctor of Landhi‑Korangi Dispensary. The illness was false pretext. His explanation was sought which he replied on 16‑10‑1982, and was found un‑satisfactory. He was told to be examined by a Medical Officer of Railway Department and in fact the Medical Officer visited his residence where the appellant was not found. Ultimately he was found guilty and was reverted to a post of Assistant Station Master. He reported for duty on 1‑12‑1982, namely, after about two months. His appeal to the Railway Department was heard and consequently he was reverted.

4. The appellant examined himself in support of his case while one Majeed Ahmad Siddiqui, Head Clerk of Divisional Superintendent's Office at Karachi was tendered in evidence.

5. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, Advocate of the appellant and Mr. Iqbal Hussain Jafry, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

6. The learned counsel of the appellant has raised two contentions in this appeal. The first contention is that appellant did not remain absent for more than 10 days but he was on sick leave. The second contention is that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is very much applicable, therefore, the enquiry should have been held in this case.

7. I proceed to answer the first question. The admitted position is that he reported for duty on 1‑‑12‑1982. He remained, without permission, on so‑called sick leave from 27‑9‑1982. He was given notice on 6‑10‑198,' to explain which he explained on 16‑10‑1982, but this explanation was submitted from his house. The question is whether he remained absent for more than 10 days. The answer is that he remained absent on a false pretext of illness which is calculated to be absent from duty from 27‑9‑1982. All the circumstances show, namely, that his treatment at Landhi‑Korangi Dispensary and his failure to obtain a certificate from the Medical Officer of the Railway Department are the circumstances which show that the appellant avoided to show correct attitude and behaviour and granted leave to his ownself by his ownself. The fact is that Medical Officer at Cantonment Station Karachi is only 10 miles from Malir whereas Korangi Dispensary is also 10 miles from Malir. Why did he avoid to go to Medical Officer at Cantonment Station. This fact was counted to be a pretext by the appellant and it was held by the Department to be absence from duty. His reporting on duty on 1‑12‑1982, indicates clearly that he was absent for more than two months from duty and his pretext of producing the certificate which were doubted by the Railway Department were actually false. In nutshell, he remained absent for more than 10 days.

8. As regards the contention that no enquiry was held or show‑cause notice was not given to him, it may be stated that the Department itself found the proved facts on record that he had produced a false certificate and that he was not available at his residence when the Medical Officer visited him and that he avoided to explain the circumstances. These facts were proved on record of the Railway Department who acted on these proved facts. No domestic enquiry was necessary under admitted facts. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is repelled.

9. The past career of the appellant is not relevant in this case and, therefore, I am not alluding to his reversion and removals in the past. But the behaviour of the appellant is not very commendable. I have read the impugned order which speaks to annonymous letter which was addressed to the Labour Court making allegations that the Labour Court should mind its own business and not to probe into the Departmental short‑comings. The learned Judge ignored this aspect of the case and was not prejudiced. However, the conduct of the appellant is shown clearly in the impugned order.

10. I have answered both the points raised by the counsel for the appellant. I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court was correct and it needs no interference. The appeal is hereby dismissed. A. E.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.