1984 PLP 1050 (PLC(CS))

Qadir Saeed for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 27th September, 1982. The five appeals captioned above arise from the decision, recorded in five separate grievance petitions of the respondents, which were decided by five separate orders dated 22nd April 1980. As the facts and law points involved in the five appeals are common, the appeals are being disposed off together through this single judgment.

2. The facts are that on account of a strike the factory was closed. By the Martial Law Order the strike was called off and the respon dents reported for duty but are alleged to have been disallowed to join duty. They were served with charge‑sheets and an enquiry was held which culminated in their dismissal. The learned lower Court observed that the charge‑sheets were vague and the enquiry report was perverse. The relevant portion of the charge‑sheet reads as under :‑ "You are continuously absent from duty for more than ten days without our permission" It is apparent that the period of absence has not been disclosed by means of dates or by some other mode. It is necessary to give dates of absence or to explain the days of absence by some other satisfactory means so that the employee concerned may know the days of absence and give explanation. A vague charge‑sheet is not legal. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that although dates of absence have not been given yet by the use of present tense by saying "You are continuously absent for more than ten days", it was made clear that upto the date of charge‑sheet the respondents were absent. By using present tense the day of charge‑sheet was included in the absence and since the absence was said to be more than ten days the day of charge‑sheet was the eleventh day. So, more than ten days' absence had not completed on the date of charge‑sheet. If the period of absence had been said to be of more than eleven days of course the day of charge‑sheet would have been the 12th day and on the day before the date of charge, more than ten days absence would have been completed. So, since the allegation was not that the absence of more than ten days had been completed before the day of charge‑sheet the allegation did not amount to misconduct. Learned counsel has argued that even if the charge‑sheet was vauge was the duty of the respondent to get it cleared from the employer and has cited P L D 1978 Lab. 1065, but the same is not helpful as it has not been observed by the Honourable Judge that if there is any ambiguity in the charge‑sheet it is duty of the employer to get it cleared or explained. In this case the finding was that there was no ambiguity, the authority therefore, is distinguishable. There is no force in the appeals which are dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.