DECISION ' The appellant, who was employed as a Machinist in the Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Limited, the respondents herein, was served with a show-cause notice dated 14th June, 1931, requiring him to explain why he failed to attend to his duties with effect from 5th May, 1981, onwards, despite the fact that he had been found, on medical check-up by the S. M.
0. Of the respondents, to be fit to report for duty. In his explanation, the appellant submitted that the medical officer had advised him to have rest and to wait for further instructions from him. He, however, did not produce any slip or authority from the S. M.
0. As his explanation was not found satisfactory and was not supported by the report of the S. M.
0. The management held a domestic enquiry against the appellant in which M. R. Kashfi, Senior Clerk of the respondent, was examined on behalf of the respondent and the appellant examined himself. It may be noted here that the appellant did not cross examine M. R. Kashfi though he was given an opportunity to do so and hence the evidence of this witness stands un-rebutted. Even in his own statement the appellant has admitted that on 4th May, 1981, when he reported to the S. M.
O., he was not in an injured state or ill. He admitted that he continued to remain about from his duties until the receipt of the show-cause notice, dated 14th July, 1981, without permission because he had been asked by the S. M. O. To have rest until further instructions. No evidence was produced by the appellant in support of the so-called advice tendered to him by the doctor. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, who found the charges against the appellant established, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order, dated 23rd September, 4981.
2. The appellant preferred a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court challenging his dismissal from service. In that grievance petition it was alleged that he had twelve years un- blemished service. He further alleged in his grievance petition that he had remained absent from his duties after visiting the S. M.
0. Of the respondent on 4th May, 1981, who advised that he should have rest. The only evidence which the appellant led in support of his contention before the learned Labour Court was his bare statement. No document or slip from the S. M.
0. Was produced in support of his stand. The S.M.O. Himself was also not examined nor was any application made for summoning him. The contention of the appellant, therefore, that the S. M.
0. Of the respondent company had orally advised him to rest at home until further advice was given by the S. M.
0. Appears to be too farfetched to be accepted. Furthermore it is highly unlikely that the S. M.
0. Would have given oral advice to the appellant to stay at home until the doctor gave him further advice, and the unlikelihood of such advice being given by the company doctor is strengthened by the admission of the appellant before the Enquiry Officer that on the day he visited the doctor he was able to walk about. This shows that the appellant was fit for duty. Moreover the admitted position is that though the practice in the company was to obtain leave or at least make an application for leave before enjoying the leave the appellant submitted no application to the respondents for grant of leave nor he intimated the management that he had been advised by the S. M.
0. To have further rest. It was for the appellant to establish that his inability to attend duties in the respondent establishment after 4th May, 1981, for a period exceeding ten days was due to reasons beyond his control. This he has failed to do. 1 would, accordingly, concur with the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss this appeal in limine.