1984 PLP 1469 (PLC)

Date of hearing : 25th April, 1984. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant, Rehmat Khan who was a permanent workman of the respondent establishment, according to his case, was granted leave for one month with effect from 15th September, 1983 to 15th October, 1983, verbally and was directed to send his leave application from his home town Jhelum. The appellant accordingly sent an application and appeared at the establishment to resume duty on 18th October, 1983 as 16th and 17th October, 1983 were holidays. The respondent refused to allow him to resume duties and terminated his duties verbally without assigning any reason. He gave a grievance notice and filed the grievance application under section 25-A, I, R. O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court No. II at Karachi.

2. The respondents' case is that the appellant remained absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 15th October, 1983, and he neither resumed the duty as claimed by him nor they terminated his services by a verbal order. According to their case further no grievance notice was served on them.

3. The learned Labour Court recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and dismissed the appellant's application as non-maintainable and directed him to report for duty at the respondent's factory vide the order, dated 11th March, 1984.

4. I have heard Mr. Ali Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant. According to him his appeal as it is clear from the appeal itself is directed against the order of the learned Labour Court denying him back benefits with effect from 15th September, 1983, the date on which he alleges to have proceeded on leave. From the perusal of the evidence and other material on the record, I find that the learned Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant absented himself unauthorisedly from his duties with effect from 15th September, 1983 and consequently in order to cover up his unauthorized absence he submitted a leave application and also raised unfounded allegation of not having been allowed to resume his duty or to have been terminated from service without assigning any reason. The learned Labour Court also came to the conclusion that no grievance notice was served on the respondent. The learned Labour Court, therefore, dismissed the application of the appel lant as non-maintainable both on facts as well as law. The learned Labour Court has further observed that during the course of the final argu ments, the learned representative for the respondents stated that the respondents were willing to have the appellant back on duty but would not pay him any thing for the period of absence with effect from 15th September, 1983, till the date of reporting his duty. The learned Labour Court has held that the appellant has failed to prove that his absence from duty was not unauthorised and that he had reported for duty on 18th October, 1983, as claimed by him and that the respondents had terminated the services of the appellant. The learned Labour Court has further observed that in the situation the appellant continues to be in the employment of the respondents although they could have proceeded against him for misconduct under Standing Orders Ordinance and could have dismissed him from service after holding a domestic enquiry.

5. The learned Labour Court as it appears to me rightly dismissed the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A,

1. R. O., 1969. No exception can be taken to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Labour Court in its impugned order. In the situation, it would not be A just and proper that the appellant should have been awarded back benefits as claimed by him by the learned Labour Court as he was neither refused to absent from duty unauthorisedly. In my view, therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to the back benefits as claimed by him.

6. The result is that I find no force in the appeal and it is dismissed in limine. A. B. Appeal dismissed.