1984 PLP 1531 (PLC(CS))

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Establishment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑-- ‑‑-S. 15(3)(e)‑Misconduct‑Absence from duty for more than 10 days‑Workman failing to resume duty after expiry of sanctioned leave‑No application for further leave made‑Notice published through Press for resumption of duty about 10 months after expiry of sanctioned leave‑Such notice remaining unreplied‑Punishment of dismissal for misconduct of absence, in circumstances, upheld. Haji Abdul Hakim Awan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 27th February, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 25th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for his rein statement in service as time‑barred as well as on merits.

2. The appellant was dismissed from service for absence from duty from 9th November, 1976 upto the date of the charge‑sheet, which is 21st February, 1978. In the daily `Nawa‑i‑Waqt', dated 9th February, 1978 a publication was made calling upon the appellant to resume duty but in spite of it the appellant did not report for duty. After his dismissal he sent a grievance notice and brought the grievance petition which was dis missed on the ground that the grievance notice was given by the lawyer. The previous petition was dismissed on 3rd June, 1980. On 23rd June, 1980 second grievance notice was given which was followed by the grievance petition from the decision of which the present appeal arises. The learned lower Court has held that the petition is delayed by 22 days The copy of the previous order of the lower Court, dated 3rd June, 1980 shows that the application for copy was given on the same date and the copy was prepared and delivered also on the same date i. e. 3rd June, 1980. So, obviously the appellant lost 22 days. Since the previous peti tion had been dismissed solely on the ground that the grievance notice was illegal, without further loss of time, fresh grievance notice should have been served. The delay of 20 days was not satisfactorily explained. The ground given for condonation is that the previous grievance petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the grievance notice had been sent by the lawyer, that sufficient time was spent in the litigation, the condonation of which was necessary. It is apparent that the time lost from the date of dismissal of the previous grievance petition upto the date of fresh grievance notice has not been explained. The lower Court, therefore, was justified in not condoning the delay. A valuable right has accrued to the respondent by the lapse of time which in the absence of cogent reason cannot be refused. Learned counsel for the appel lant has argued that the order of dismissal is void as no enquiry was made and that no period of limitation starts against a void order. He has cited 1978 P L C

164. This is a decision of the Labour Court of Lahore and no doubt it has been observed that no period of limitation starts against a void order, but I cannot agree with the view expressed in the said authority. Period of limitation, however, starts from the date on which void order is attempted to be enforced against a person. Admittedly, the order of dismissal has been implemented against the appellant and he had not been allowed to resume, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to issue grievance notice without further loss of time after his previous petition was dismissed.

4. The appellant had taken three months' leave from 15th January, 1977 to 14th April, 1977 and on its expiry did not move any other applica tion for leave. No receipt postal or otherwise was produced in support of the fact that application for leave had been sent thereafter. If he had given any application, the respondents would not have felt the necessity of making publication in the daily Nowa‑i‑Waqt of 9th February, 1978. It is, there fore, apparent that the appellant remained absent without leave. According to Standing Order 15(3)(e), absence without leave for more than 10 days is misconduct. The appellant, therefore, was rightly dismissed. Even on merits he has no case.

5. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.