1990 PLP 504 (PLC)

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑This above petition is directed against the orders dated 7‑10‑1980 and dated 31‑1‑1982 passed by the 1st Labour Court at Karachi and the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal respectively.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition arc that the petitioner was employed as Calligraphist in the respondent No. 1's newspaper with effect from 21st September, 1979. The petitioner's services were terminated on 19‑12‑1979. It is the case of the petitioner that he never received any termination order, but factually he was on leave. However, the case of the respondent No. 1 is that after the above termination on 19‑12‑1979 the petitioner was re‑employed in February, 1980 on daily wages basis. It is the case of the petitioner that he was stopped from entering into the respondent's establishment on 5‑9‑1980. After that he served a grievance notice on 9‑9‑1980. Whereas the case of the respondent No. 1 is that the petitioner abandoned the work voluntarily on 5‑9‑1980 and that he was not stopped. The petitioner riled an application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. before the 1st Labour Court at Karachi which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 7‑10‑1980. Against the above order the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by an order dated 31‑1‑1982. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.

3. In support of the above petition Mr. Shams‑uz‑Zaman learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that even if it is to be conceded for the sake of arguments that the petitioner was re‑employed in February, 1980, he worked for more than three months on daily wages and, therefore, he had become a permanent workman and hence he was entitled to a show‑cause notice and an enquiry before his services could have been terminated.

4. On the other hand Mr. Jamil Raza Zaidi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has contended that there is a concurrent finding of the two forums that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the work from 5‑9‑1980, and therefore, the question of serving any show‑cause notice or holding any enquiry did not arise.

5. In our view, if the concurrent finding on the question that the petitioner, had voluntarily abandoned the work cannot be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, in that event we cannot hold that respondent No. 1 was bound to serve a show‑cause notice or to hold an enquiry before terminating his services. The plea of abandonment of the work by the workman is in fact directly opposed to tile plea of termination. In other words, if the plea of l abandonment of the job is to be accepted, in that event there would be not requirement of either serving a show‑cause notice or holding an enquiry, because it would be deemed that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the job. In the instant case two forums have concluded on the basis of the evidence of two witnesses that factually the petitioner was not stopped from working at the gate as alleged by him, but he voluntarily abandoned the work by not reporting for duty. The above finding, in our view, cannot be disturbed in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition, is therefore, dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./K‑195/K Petition dismissed.