1993 PLP 205 (PLC)

(14) 7 January 1988 in conjunction with 8 and 9 January, 1988. (15) 11 to 14 January, 1988 in conjunction with 15 and 16 January, 1988. (16) 7 February, 1988 in conjunction with 5 and 6 February, 1988. (17) 14 to 18 February, 1988 in conjunction with 12 and 13 February and 19 and 20 February, 1988. (18) 24 March, 1988 in conjunction with 23 March and 25 and 26 March, 1988. (19) 30 and 31 March, 1988 in conjunction with 1 to 3 April, 1988. (20) 3 to 5 May, 1988 in conjunction with 6 and 7 May, 1988. (21) 10 to 12 May and 15 and 16 May, 1988 in conjunction with 13 and 14 May and 17 to 21 May, 1988. (22) 26 June, 1988 in conjunction with 24 and 25 June, 1988. (23) 3 July, 1988 in conjunction with 1 and 2 July, 1988. (24) 7 and 10 July, 1988 in conjunction with 8 and 9 July, 1988. (25) 27 and 28 July, 1988 in conjunction with 22 to 26 July and 29 and 30 July, 1988. This indicates your mala fides that you careless for the work and that you are only interested in extending your holidays. The above acts constitute offences within the meaning of the following Standing Orders of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968:‑ (1) 15(1)(ii)(a) Disregard of orders (2) 15(1)(ii)(d) Careless working (3) 15(1)(ii)(e) Malingering. (4) 15(3)(d) Habitual absence without leave. (5) 15(3)(f) Habitual late attendance. (6) 15(3)(j) Frequent repetition of malingering, careless working, and disregard of orders. You are hereby called upon to explain in writing within three days of the receipt of this notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. In case no reply is received from you within the time mentioned above, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the matter will be decided ex parte. Yours faithfully per pro MACKINNON MACKENZIE & CO. OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. (Sd.) MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION).

3. The explanation submitted by the appellant was not found to be satisfactory and a domestic enquiry was ordered. It was conducted by one Subzwari who after examining one Muhammad Nawaz, Manager Administration and also the appellant recommended "further disciplinary action". The final show‑cause notice was issued on 11‑2‑1988 which was replied to on 14‑12‑1988. On the 23rd of January, 1989 the appellant was dismissed from service.

4. He sent a grievance notice, and later filed the petition, and was the only witness on his behalf. One Rustam Khursigara, Manager Personnel Administration was examined on behalf of the respondent who the relevant record.

5. The learned Presiding Officer found that the documentary evidence support of the misconduct of the appellant was overwhelming and as the allegations clearly made out misconduct, the order of dismissal unexceptionable.

6. Khursigara has produced in support of the 25 instances nit the show‑cause notice, the attendance cards with effect from July 1988, showing the appellant late, absent or on leave almost every month. He has also produced applications for sick leave on various dates. There were also letters produced showing the displeasure of the respondent behavior of the appellant and reprimands. The letters have not been denied. After all these threats and reprimands he was once proceeded against for this persistent non‑chalant behavior and irregular attendance and charge was established, he escaped punishment on the intercession Enquiry Officer.

7. So the appellant in view of these happenings should have been the guard and realised that he should have a more discreet duties but he did not mend his behavior. It is said that on the 27th July he had made an application for the grant of two days leave to his immediate who did not recommend it due to pressure of work. The submission application is denied by the appellant and Mr. Khursigara in spite promises did not care to produce it on the record later on. Anyway there is an application for the leave of absence of 2 days on the 31st of July appellant had reported for duty. It was this wilful disobedience the issuance of the charge‑sheet.

8. The contention of Mr. Gohar Iqbal that the entire record should have been produced, is being too demanding and uncalled has been produced is more than enough to have dispensed with the long before. He was all along indifferent and casual in his approach duties and that has been abundantly proved. I do not think the earlier could be any better, but even assuming that he had been punctual and regular in attendance those days he was simply doing his duty as an employee not doing any favour to his employers.

9. The mention of trade union activities is nothing but in embellishment. The appellant was not an office‑bearer of any trade union and the bearers of the trade union admittedly had not come to any harm. There is nothing actually to show that there was any ferment or any torrid of any sort in the organization then or earlier.

10. The appellant could have avoided this fate if he so liked as been given ample opportunities to turn a new leaf in his life. The do constitute misconduct under clauses (e) and (f) of the Standing Order 151 which is punishable with dismissal. I will therefore uphold the order of Labour i Court and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2045/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.