1997 PLC 710 (PLP)
NADEEM ANWAR Versus ATLAS AUTOS LTD., KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1997 PLC 710 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NADEEM ANWAR Versus ATLAS AUTOS LTD., KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLC 710 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLC 710 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLC 710 (PLP) (NADEEM ANWAR Versus ATLAS AUTOS LTD., KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O 15(3)(e)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after charge -sheeting him and holding enquiry against him on charge that he was in the habit of remaining absent without leave for which he was frequently warned orally and in writing‑‑‑Employee despite such warning did not improve and absented himself without obtaining leave for about 30 times in one and half years‑‑‑Habitual absence without leave being misconduct under S.O. 15(3)(e? of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders; Ordinance, 1968, employee was rightly dismissed from service on that ground.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O 15(3)(e)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service after charge -sheeting him and holding enquiry against him on charge that he was in the habit of remaining absent without leave for which he was frequently warned orally and in writing‑‑‑Employee despite such warning did not improve and absented himself without obtaining leave for about 30 times in one and half years‑‑‑Habitual absence without leave being misconduct under S.O. 15(3)(e? of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders; Ordinance, 1968, employee was rightly dismissed from service on that ground. Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Appellant. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi dismissing the grievance petition of the worker under section 25‑A, I.R.O. for reinstatement in service and back benefits.
2. The appellant was a permanent worker in the respondent Motor Car Assembly Plant known as Atlas Autos Limited. The appellant was in the habit of remaining absent without leave for which he was frequently warned orally and in writing but he did not improve and he absented himself without obtaining the leave for about 30 times in one and the half years. He was accordingly charge‑sheeted and after domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service.
3. It has been argued by the representative of the appellant Mr. Khalilur Rehman that even if there was no leave at the credit of the appellant and he had exhausted all the 14 days leave he could be granted leave without pay but in these cases he was not informed whether the leave was granted or refused. There is, however, no evidence to the effect that an application for leave was made in advance each time the appellant remained absent. No such application has been summoned or brought on record. If no application was made in advance the result of the application also could not be communicated to the appellant before his proceeding on leave. Here the question is of absence without leave. Under Standing Order 15(3)(e) habitual absence without leave amounts to misconduct. The appellant has, therefore, rightly been dismissed.
4. There is no substance or merit in this appeal, which is rejected under the circumstances. H. B.T./211/Lb.S Appeal rejected.