1989 PLC 619 (PLP)

‑‑‑S.O. 14‑‑Retrenched worker‑‑Employment on re‑start of mills‑‑Employer bound to give preference to retrenched worker if he reports for duty within ten days of resumption of work in following season‑‑Employer has discretion to send notice to retrenched worker requiring him to report for duty not earlier than ten days before resumption of work‑‑Retrenched worker reporting for duty was told to come on the following day‑‑Such action does not amount to refusal on part of employer to give duty‑‑Worker not coming on next day and making no application etc. for 12 days and coming after 24 days with medical certificate of illness‑‑Employer, in circumstances, held, not obliged to employ him. MA. Javed for Appellant. Sajjad Hussain Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 26‑5‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The facts are that the appellant was a seasonal clerk. He is alleged to have reported for duty on 30‑10‑1987 for the crushing season of 1987‑88 and was asked to come on the following day. The appellant did not report for duty on the following day and his case is that he fell ill and could not recover upto 23‑11‑1987. He is alleged to have reported for duty on 24‑11‑1987 and that duty was refused to him. The appellant deposed that he had sent application, copy of which is Exh. P‑3 supported by medical certificate, copy of which is Exh. P‑2 vide postal receipt Exh. P‑7 on 8‑11‑1987. The law in this respect is contained in proviso to Standing Order 14 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. According to the first proviso, if a retrenched person in a season reports for duty within ten days of the resumption of work in the factory in the following season, the employer‑has to give preference to him over other persons. According to second proviso, the employer has a discretion to send a notice by registered post to the worker who was retrenched in the previous season requiring him to report for duty not earlier than ten days before the resumption of work in such factory and if the worker reports for duty, he is to be given preference. The appellant reported for duty and was asked to come on the following day. This does not amount to refusal on the part of the employer to give duty. Thereafter the appellant did not go and did not send leave application forthwith. According to him, he had sent application alongwith the medical certificate on 8‑11‑1987. There is no evidence on what actual date the said application was received by the respondent. Normally two or three days are spent in the delivery of a registered notice, which means that on 11th or 12th the application sent by the appellant may have reached the respondent. Since during eleven or twelve days the respondent did not hear anything from the appellant, he was free to engage some other person in place of the appellant in order to save himself from the loss. If the appellant had sent intimation of his illness within a day or two of his falling ill; of course it would have been possible for the respondent to engage some person temporarily till the arrival of the appellant. So in these circumstances, the respondent was not obliged to employ the appellant B on 24‑11‑1987 when he is alleged to have reported for duty. Since the appellant had reported under the first proviso to Standing Order 14 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the second proviso is not applicable and even otherwise too it is not mandatory for the employer to issue notice for joining duty as the word `may' and not `shall' has been used. The grievance petition of the appellant thus was rightly dismissed.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./625/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.