1983 PLP 949 (PLC(CS))

January 21 & 28 February '10 March 11, 25 & 28 April 14 June 29 & 30 July 1 October 8 November 12 & 28 In his explanation, dated 13th December,‑ 1981, the appellant asserted that from 29th June, 1981, to 1st July, 1981 he was absent as his infant daughter had died and he had applied for and was granted leave, that on 28th November, 1981, he' has applied for leave as he was sick but hot words were exchanged and the leave application was torn and that for the remaining period/days he was in fact present but his card was either not punched or the punching of the card was missed.' The respondent did not consider the explanation of the appellant satisfactory and, accordingly, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The domestic enquiry was held by Mr. K. Mecklai, an officer of the respondent organization. The enquiry was held on 8th February, 1982, in which statements of Catering Manager, W. Sayer, and Javed Khan, were recorded besides the statement of the appel lant. Since both the witnesses supported the allegations against the appellant, except the allegation of remaining absent without leave with effect from 29th June, 1981 to 1st July, 1981, during which period the appellant bad taken leave on account of the death of his infant daughter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Management that the charge of habitual absence from duty, except for the period from 29th June to 1st of July, had been duly established against the appellant. The appellant was ultimately dismissed from service by the respondent Mana gement vide order, dated 20th February, 1982.

2. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned IVth Labour Court, which has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, vide its decision, dated 17th January, 1983, on the ground that the misconduct of the appellant has been duly established in a fair and impartial enquiry and full opportunity of defence was given to the appellant. The learned Labour Court has at length examined the evidence led before it as well as in the domestic enquiry and has come to the positive conclusion that the appellant was absent on as many as ten occasions from‑his duties without leave. Aggrieved by this decisions the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

3. The appellant is unrepresented and hence was heard in person. He submitted that .his absence from duties was on account of the fact that he was ill. It may be pointed out that in his reply to the show‑cause notice, the appellant has only claimed that he had beets on leave‑ from 29th June, 1981 to 1st July, 1981, on the ground of the death of his infant daughter, that on 28th November, 1981, he had applied for leave and that on the rest of the days was present but either his card was not punched or the punching of the card was missed. It, however, appears from the evidence of witness W. Sayer, Catering Manager of the respondent organization, that the appellant was absent from his duties without leave on 21st and 28th January, February 10th, March 11th, 25th and 28th, April 14th, October 8th and November 12th and 28th. Witness Sayer has further testified that in connection with his absence from duties the Management had addressed five letters in the year 1.981 *to the appellant, one on 20th April, second on 11th May, third on July, 12th fourth on 12th August and fifth on 17th November, pointing out to the appellant his habitual absence without leave and bringing it to his notice that, his action is considered as misconduct under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Copies of these letters sent to the appellant were produced by witness Sayer. The appellant did not cross‑examine witness Sayer and instead asked for forgiveness clearly indicating that he accepted the evidence of witness Sayer as quite correct. The appellant did not' suggest to witness Sayer that his card was not punched or punching of the card was missed, as claimed by him in the explanation to the show‑cause notice, dated 13t" December. 1981. Witness Javed Khan, who was the second witness examined in the domestic enquiry, supported the evidence of witness Saver and confirmed that it was the responsibility of the employee to punch hip own card. The appellant did not cross‑examine this witness also. In view of the above evidence .the Enquiry Officer very justifiably submitted a finding that the charges against the appellant, except for his alleged absence from 29th June, 1981 to 1st July, 1981, had been established.

4. Although in his reply, dated 13th December, 1981, to the show‑cause notice, the appellant had claimed that he had been granted leave on 29th June, 1981 to 1st July, 1981, that for 28th November, 1981 he had applied for leave and that on the remaining days when he is supposed to have been absent from duties he was actually present but either the card was not punched or the punching of the card was missed, in his affidavit before the learned Labour Court he has turned a somersault and allege,‑' that he was granted leave by the respondent administration for lot!: June, 1981, 29th June, 1981 to 1st July, 1981 and 8th October, 1981 while for the remaining days no reply was given by the respondent and that 17: was present on 14th April, 1981 and 12th November, 1981, but the respon dent Management has failed to punch his card. 1t may be pointed out that it was established in the domestic enquiry that the appellant ha,' been granted leave with effect from 29th June, 1981 to 1st of July, 1981, 0, account of the death of his infant daughter and hence this period wa s excluded while considering the issue of habitual absence of the appellant, from his duties. The claim of the appellant in his affidavit before the learned Labour Court that he was granted leave by the Management for 10th February, 1981 and 8th October. 1981, is not only in complete contradiction of the claim in his reply, dated 13th December, 1981 to the grievance notice that he remained present on the said dates but further he has failed to substantiate his claim that he was present on those dated as his card shows that he was absent on those days. Moreover the two witnesses examined in the domestic enquiry, Sayer and Javed Ahmed, both categorically stated that he had remained absent on the said dates as we: as other dates and the appellant not only did not cross‑examine them but, in fact asked .forgiveness from Sayer for his lapses. 1t is, therefore, clew that the appellant was absent on the ten occasions as stated by the afore said two witnesses in the domestic enquiry. In his evidence before the learned Labour Court, the appellant has also tried to assert that on 140 April, 1981. and 12th November, 1981 he was present in the establishment but his card was not punched. Apart from the fact that no evidence ha ‑been led by the appellant in support of his bare statement that he was present on the said dates, it is clear from the evidence of the two witnesses examined in the domestic enquiry whose statements have gone unchallenged, that the appellant was absent from his duties on these days as well as the other eight‑ occasions specified by them. Moreover it has been explained by the witness Javed Ahmed that it is the responsibility of the employee to punch his card.

5. The appellant has also sought to show that during the year 1981 he was ill and that he was under treatment of a physician. In support of his contention he has filed certain prescriptions but apart from the fact that these prescriptions are not for the dates on which he was absent without leave the mere fact that he obtained the prescriptions does not necessarily lead to the inference that he was unable to perform his duties. Neither these prescriptions were produced before the Enquiry Officer nor were the doctors who had issued these prescriptions examined before the Enquiry Officer or the learned Labour Court. In view of these circum stances these prescriptions are of little help to the appellant.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine. Appeal dismissed.