1971 PLP 331 (PLC)

(a) returns within 8 days of :be expiry of the leave; and (b) explains to the satisfaction of the employer his inability to return before the expiry of his leave. Standing Order 15(3) reads as follows:‑ The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct:‑ (a) . . . . . . . . . . (b) . . . . . . . . . . (c) . . . . . . . . . . (d) . . . . . . . . . . (e) habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 days. (f) . . . . . . . . . . (g) . . . . . . . . . . (h) . . . . . . . . . . (i) . . . . . . . . . . (j) . . . . . . . . . . (k) . . . . . . . . . . (l) . . . . . . . . . . In the present case, I find chat no leave, at all, had been given to the respondent and therefore there was no question of his remaining absent beyond the period of leave and as such Stand ing Order 8(3) is not applicable. He, in fact, has been absent without leave for a period of more than 10 days and therefore his case will fall under Standing Order 15(3)(e) which is a mis conduct. In order to dismiss a person for misconduct, the follow ing procedure as laid down under Standing Order 15(4) should have been followed:‑ No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer 'shall be required in every case of dismissal and, when circumstances appear to warrant it, the employer may institute independent inquiries before dealing with charges against a workman. From the material on the record, it has been established that no inquiry was held and as such the aforementioned provisions were not complied with. The counsel for the appellant, however; argued that there was no question of communicating charge‑sheet and holding an enquiry against the respondent because the District Manager had repeatedly asked him to report for duty but he refused to join. This argument has no force because under Stand ing Order 15(4) it has been specifically laid down that no order of dismissal can be passed unless the workman concerned informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him.

6. Lastly, I also find that the appellant in his written state ment has admitted that Industrial Disputes Nos. 9/67 and 14/67 pertaining to Government Transport Service, Lyallpur were pend ing in the Industrial Court and as such he could not have been dismissed without prior permission of that Court, in this connec tion, a reference is made to section 30 of the Industrial Dispute Ordinance, 1959, which reads as follows:‑ Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged during the pendency of proceedings. No employer shall during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings or proceedings before a Court in respect of any industrial dispute, alter to the prejudiced of the workmen concerned in such dispute the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commence ment of such proceedings, nor save with the express permission in writing of the Conciliation Officer or Court, as the case may be, shall he during the pendency of such proceedings, discharge, dismiss, or otherwise punish any such workman: In view of the above, I hold that the dismissal of the respon dent was illegal, I accordingly, uphold the order of the Industrial Court, Central Zone, Lahore and dismiss the appal.