1979 C 111 (PLP)
SHAUKAT MAHMOOD Versus FACTORY MANAGER, GEOFMAN PHARMACEUTICALS, KARACHI
| Citation | 1979 C 111 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAUKAT MAHMOOD Versus FACTORY MANAGER, GEOFMAN PHARMACEUTICALS, KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 C 111 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 C 111 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 C 111 (PLP) (SHAUKAT MAHMOOD Versus FACTORY MANAGER, GEOFMAN PHARMACEUTICALS, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Samiullah Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Samiullah Khan for Respondent. Date of bearing : 11th January 1977. This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application under section 25‑A of I. R. O., 1969.
2. The appellant was said to have remained absent from 20‑11‑75 without any leave or intimation. Two letters dated 26‑11‑75 and 30‑11‑1975 were sent to him whereby he was directed to resume duty but they were received back undelivered as appellant was not available at the place of his address. 1t was admitted by the appellant that be had left Karachi and had gone away to his native place. Since the appellant could not be served with show‑ cause notice arid enquiry notice the same were published in daily "Jang" The appellant did not appear and an ex parte enquiry was held in which he was found guilty. A second show‑cause notice dated 26‑10‑75 was sent by registered post to the appellant but it was undelivered. So a notice was published in daily "Jang" on 6‑1‑
76. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service.
3. It is the case of the appellant that he left for District Jhelum on 23‑11‑75 where he fell ill. He received notice on 6‑1‑76 to resume his duties. So he returned to Karachi and reported for duty on 8‑1‑76 but he was not permitted. He approached the Union and the General Secretary sent an application to the respondent on 12‑1‑76 thereafter, an application under section 25‑A of I. R. O., 1969 was made on 12‑2‑76.
4. The application was resisted. Evidence tendered by both the parties was considered by the Labour Court and the application was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has remained absent for 3J months without permission and, in spite of show‑cause notices, he remained absent and, therefore, no fault could be found with the ex parte enquiry and the dismissal of the appellant.
5. From the statement of facts, it is plain enough that the appellant remained absent without any leave for months. There is no evidence to prove that he had fallen ill. He did not care to send any application for leave. Consequently he had no valid reason for remaining absent. Every effort was made by the respondent to serve him before taking the disciplinary action. The appellant deliberately remained absent. No excuse is available for condonation of his misconduct. In result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.