' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.--- These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against judgment, dated 28-5-2007 whereby labour appeals filed by the respondent bank were allowed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Sukkur.
2. Precisely stating, the fact of the case are that the petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings on the charge of habitual absence from duty and late coming during the period from January to June, 2004. The inquiry officer found him guilty of the charge. A final show-cause notice was issued to him followed by termination of his services.
After availing the departmental remedy, he approached the Labour Court, Sukkur for redressal of his grievance. His grievance application was accepted by the Labour Court on 14-6-2006 and he was reinstated in service but without back-benefits. Both the parties felt aggrieved and filed separate appeals. The High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Sukkur vide impugned judgment, dated 28-5-2007 set aside judgment of the Labour Court. The concluding para. Of the impugned judgment reads as under:--- "The charge sheet issued in time when the objection was brought to the notice of management by the auditors was not time-barred as has been held in case of Manager, Planning Formation and Control Novertis (Pakistan) Ltd. And another (supra) that after service of charge sheet on workmen after one month of commission of misconduct but within one month of receipt of report of preliminary inquiry conducted by employer in which workman had also joined would not be time- barred charge-sheet. The charge specifically mentioned that the respondent was absent without leave for the period of six months. In case of Muhammad Farooq (supra) it has been held that if workman habitually absents himself without leave for more than 10 days can be said to be guilty of misconduct. Although the Labour Court has jurisdiction to examine the cases as well as enquiry proceedings both on merits as well as to legality of the same but such examination would not amount to substitute the findings of Enquiry Officer on his own findings without any tangible material as has been held in case of Mukarram Shah 'v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 2005 PLC 14."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a workman and the conclusion drawn by the High Court to the contrary was not sustainable at law. Besides, the charge of misconduct had not been proved against him. As such, the relief granted by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the petitioner in service was just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the available record. It is to be noted that on the basis of thorough probe, the enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct for his habitual absence from duty and late coming during January to June, 2004. Even if we were to consider his status as workman, the petitioner had got no case on merits. As per observations by the High Court reproduced above the allegations of habitual absence from duty against the petitioner were fully substantiated. The High Court had correctly set aside the judgment of Labour Court. Therefore, it would not be proper for us to interfere with such findings of fact recorded by the High Court in the absence of any illegality.
5. Thus for the foregoing reasons, these petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.