DECISION ' The appellant, who was employed as a Senior Clerk in the Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Limited, the respondent herein, was dismissed from service with effect from 2nd June, 1980 on the charge of repeated and habitual late attendance in spite of warning. The dismissal orders were based on the report of the Enquiry Officer who found in the domestic enquiry conducted against the appellant the charge of habitual late attendance fully established. The appellant challenged the orders of dismissal before the learned Fourth Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition by its decision, dated 5th May, 1981. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the said decision.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Saddique Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Before examining the contention of Mr. Muhammad Saddique Khan it would be appropriate to point out that prior to the show-cause notice, dated 17th April, 1980 the appellant was issued two letters of warning. The first letter is dated 15th January, 1980. According to that letter, the appellant attended the office late from 5th November, 1979 up to 2nd January, 1980 on no less than 16 occasions. According to the second letter of warning which is dated 26th March, 1980, the appellant, during the period from 10th January, 1980 to 5th March, 1980, attended the office late on as many as 34 occasions. In spite of these warnings, which contained a specific threat that if the appellant did not refrain from coming late in future severe disciplinary action would be taken against him according to the show-cause notice, during the period from 10th March, 1980 to 2nd April, 1980, the appellant attended the office late on 15 occasions. As there is a self-punching system in the respondent establishment there is no dispute as to the actual time at which the appellant attended office on the above occasion or on any other dates.
4. The first ground on which Mr. Muhammad Saddique Khan assailed the impugned decision was that as the appellant had been given warnings, therefore, his late attendance prior to the date of the second warning, i,e,, 26th March, 1980, cannot legally be taken into consideration against the appellant. It may be pointed out that warning is not one of the punishments prescribed under the Standing Orders and consequently the administration of a warning cannot be considered to be a punishment for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Furthermore as already pointed out, the warning was coupled with the clear threat that if the appellant continued to attend the office late stern disciplinary action would be taken against him. Therefore, the warning letters should be construed as a warning to the appellant that if he did not eschew the nefarious practice of attending late stern disciplinary action would be taken against him. The appellant, however, appears to have been incorrigible and continued in his old practice of attending office late, completely ignoring the serious warnings given to him. It is, thus, clear that the appellant, was a habitual and persistent late comer.
5. It was next' contended by Mr. Muhammad Saddique that there was a practice in the respondent establishment of adjusting the period of late attendance exceeding half an hour against leave due, and in accordance with that practice, the late attendance of the appellant had been adjusted against his leave due. In the first place the mere adjustment of late attendance against the leave due does not absolve the appellant from the serious charge of habitual late attendance nor can the practice be considered either as an award of statutory punishment to the appellant or the waiving of the right of the management to proceed against him under Standing Order 15 and moreover, it may be pointed out that out of the 34 occasions on which the appellant attended office late as per the warning letter, dated 26th March, 1980, the adjustment against leave due to the appellant was made only in respect of the four occasions on which the appellant had attended the office late by more than half an hour but for the remaining occasions when the appellant had attended late no such adjustment was made. Similarly, in respect of the period covered by the warning letter, dated 15th January, 1980, the late attendance of the appellant was adjusted against the leave due to him in respect of the occasions that he attended late by more than half an hour.
6. It was finally contended by Mr. Muhammad Saddique Khan that the appellant was an office- bearer of the union and was exempted from his normal duties. Even if any such concession had been accorded to him, though I am constrained to remark that such a concession in public sector organization is wholly unwarranted and reflects adversely on the administration of such an organization, the appellant was no' exempted from attending the office in time, which is clear from the warning letters issued to him. This contention as also the other contention of Mr. Muhammad Saddique thus has no substance.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.