1995 PLP 329 (PLC)

Nizamuddin Baloch for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th November, 1989. These two appeals are directed against the orders of learned Sindh Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur, dated 21‑2‑1989. The facts and point of law in both the cases are similar thereby I intend to dispose of them by this single decision.

2. Admittedly both the respondents were employed as Beldars on regular basis at the relevant time and their services were terminated. Admittedly they remained absent from duty for long time and consequently their services were terminated. It is alleged by the respondents that due to tribal feud between their tribe and Kureja Community, which resulted in several murders, they had gone in hiding and sent application for leave to which they received no reply. It is further alleged by them that their services were not terminated by written orders but when they reported to resume duty, they were disallowed to resume duty. After giving grievance notice to the appellants they fled grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court which was resisted by the appellants on the ground that respondent's services were terminated by written orders after due domestic enquiry. The appellant also denied to' have received any grievance notice. However, grievance. petitions were allowed by impugned orders.

3. I have heard Mr. Ziauddin Qasmi, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

4. The only witness examined by the appellants in both the cases is Mr. Muhammad Umer Farooqui, Assistant Engineer, who has admitted in the cross‑examination that the respondent reported for duty in March, 1988 and such letter was written by XEN to the Project Director on 1‑4‑1988. He further admitted that they state to have sent leave application to Darogha but such applications are not on record. He has admitted that the absence of the applicants was genuine and no charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice were issued to the respondents as their whereabouts were not known. He further admitted that no order of termination of service of the respondent was issued by the office but when the respondents came to resume for that duty they were refused by letter dated 4‑5‑1988 to join their duties.

5. From the admission of the above witness of the appellants, it is clear that no domestic enquiry was held and no notice as required under Standing Order 15(4) was served upon the respondents. The letter, dated 4‑5‑1988 referred to by this witness in cross‑examination is on the record but it does not show that services of the respondent were terminated but it is letter informing Project Director that the vacancies of the respondents had already been filled in and further instructions were solicited. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that any order of termination of services of the respondents was issued as required under Standing Order 12(3).

6. The only objection of the appellants that requires consideration is that the grievance notice was not served upon the appellant. The copy of the grievance notice has been produced by the respondents as Exh. A‑

4. It is addressed to Secretary Irrigation, Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Project Director, Khairpur and Executive Engineer, Khairpur Drainage Division. It was sent by Registered Post. The respondents have produced Postal Registration Receipts with regard to the letters sent to Secretary, Irrigation. No one from these offices has been examined to rebut the averment of the respondents. One Assistant Engineer, who is Field Officer, has been examined. It is not possible to believe that letters sent by Registered Post to such officers would not be received by them.

7. In view of the circumstances of the case and admitted position to see no merits in these appeals which are dismissed. M.Y.H./1605/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.