1987 PLP 285 (PLC)

Syed Farahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986. The grievance petition of Sultan Javed was dismissed on 12‑3‑1985 by the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad. This is an appeal against the said impugned order.

2. The facts which emanate from the grievance petition are that Sultan Javed was serving for the last 6 years with the respondent establishment. He was charge‑sheeted on 9‑8‑1982, on the allegations of his unauthorized absence for more than 10 days from 26‑7‑1982 to 5‑8‑1982. He was, therefore, dismissed from service.

3. The appellant, Sultan Javed, pleaded that he was granted privilege leave. The reply statement of the respondent establishment is that the grievance petition of the appellant is not maintainable due to the fact that the appellant was Head Technician and was having supervisory duties. Further, the respondents stated that the appellant was not permitted any privilege leave but in fact the appellant had remained on unauthorized leave and despite a notice letter, dated 29‑7‑1982 he did not report for duty nor submitted his reply. Accordingly he was charge‑sheeted and after holding proper domestic enquiry he was dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as the record of the same.

5. Two points were raised in this appeal. Firstly, that he was a Head Technician; therefore, he was a Supervisor. He used to supervise three technicians as well as the work of these workers. Second point is raised that he remained absent for more than 10 days.

6. As regards the first point, the appellant has detailed his duties in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of his affidavit in evidence. In cross‑examination, he denied that the technicians were working under him or he was only to supervise their work. He denied the fact that A he was an Incharge of the workshop, The Branch Manager could not produce any Duty Roaster of the appellant or the appellant's appointment letter wherein the duties of the appellant were said to have been detailed and classified. Likewise, the Branch Manager could not produce any document to show that any person was subordinate to the appellant. In this situation, the appellant was workman and fell within the category. It is a settled Law for determination of the status of an employee the designation is not the criteria but the nature of duties which are to be performed, have to be generally considered. I, therefore, would class him as a workman and not supervisor in his capacity as Head Technician.

7. The second point which is agitated is that he remained absent without authority and sanction of the leave for more than 10 days. This appears to have been proved. The appellant felt that he was orally given an order by his superior that his privilege leave was granted and that he believed that since he was orally granted leave so he remained absent. This was a mistake on his part, and he did not wait for a letter as such granting the leave. He has remained absent for more than 10 days, therefore, he was found guilty. There is nothing on record to find that he did not remain absent for more than 10 days. There is nothing on record to prove that privilege leave was granted orally to him. He, therefore, comes within the mischief of D Standing Order

15. As such the Labour Court while parting with his papers observed that his dismissal may be converted into termination simpliciter and such an observation he impressed upon the respondent establishment. Otherwise, he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. I feel that the poor man was under a misconception and he thought that leave was granted. I also recommend the gesture given to the appellant by the Labour Court that his case may be considered as termination simpliciter. 1, therefore, dismiss this appeal. S.Q./875/Lb Appeal dismissed.