DECISION ' The appellant, who was employed as a cooli in the respondent-Company, was dismissed from service, by order, dated 24th June, 1980, on the charges of habitual absence from duty. The dismissal orders Were passed on a domestic enquiry in which the misconduct of the appellant is said to have been established and he was found to have been absent from duty without leave for a total period of 32 days during the period from September, 1979 to May, 1980. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned Fourth Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition and agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was un- authorisedly absent for a number of days during the period from September, 1979, to May, 1980. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. It was contended by Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not even informed of the specific dates on which he was alleged to have been absent from duty and consequently he was not only hampered in his defence but it was not possible for him to make proper reply to the allegations of the Management. The material part of the charge-sheet, dated 4th June, 1980, which was admittedly served upon the appellant, reads as follows :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The charge-sheet was accompanied by a statement showing that the appellant was absent from his duties without leave for 4 days in September, 1979, 3 days in October, 1979, 3 days in November, 1979, 3 days in December, 1979, 2 days in January, 1980, 3 days in February, 4. 1980, 6 days in March, 1980, 4 days in April, 1980, and 4 days in May, 1980. The statement also shows the other leaves taken by the appellant during the aforesaid period of nine months. At the domestic enquiry, the Management examined Kabiruddin, the Labour Welfare Officer of the management, who testified that the appellant was absent for a total period of 32 days during the period from September, 1979 to May, 1980. He gave the break-up of the days on which the appellant was absent without leave for each month. He was not cross-examined by the appellant. In his statement before the Enquiry Officer, the appellant while admitting his absence from duties as alleged by the management, gave the following explanation :--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The appellant having substantially admitted the charges of having remained absent from duty for the period stated in the charge-sheet, it was for him to show that the absence was covered by due permission. This he failed to do. All that he contended was that he had submitted in most cases applications for leave. The Mangement denied that for the aforesaid dates any leave application had been made by the appellant, but even if the contention of the appellant is accepted that he had submitted such applications, specially in view of the statements of the two witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer, Muhammad Kamaz,that they had written out applications for leave for the appellant, then also the appellant was not justified in remaining absent from his duty without ascertaining whether his leave application has been granted or not. His negligence in this behalf can be seen from his admission before the Enquiry Officer that he had not cared to find out whether his applications for leave had been granted or not. The mere fact of the applicant having made some applications for grant of leave on certain occasions does not exonerate him of the charges of remaining absent from duties without leave. The charges against the appellant, thus, appear to have been fully established in the domestic enquiry mainly through the admission of the appellant himself.
3. As regards the contention of Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim that the appellant was not informed of the specific dates on which he was absent this appears to be unnecessary in view of the admission of the appellant himself regarding his having remained absent from his duties. Furthermore, if the appellant had any doubt as to the correctness of the statement of his absences appended to the charge-sheet he could have had the attendance register summoned either before the Enquiry Officer or the Labour Court. He however, failed to do so. This suggests that the statement of' the absences appended to the charge-sheet was substantially correct.
4. As there was concrete evidence before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant remained absent from duty without leave, the misconduct of the appellant appears to have been fully established and the orders of dismissal of appeal to be unassailable. I, accordingly concur in the finding of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal in limine.