DECISION The appellant, who was an Oilman in the respondent-Company was granted leave for one month from 19th December, 1981 to 17th January. 1982, for going to his native place in District Mansehra. N.- W. F. P. The appellant failed to report for duty with the respondent- Company on the expiry of his sanctioned leave as he was involved in a murder case at his native place and was in custody.
According to the appellant he had sub--mitted two applications for extension of leave, one in the month of January, 1982, and the second on 20th February, 1.982, but the respondent-Company did not grant him leave and instead terminated his services, vide letter, dated 17th February, 1982, which letter was sent to the appellant at his home address by registered post acknowledgment due. The appellant ultimately came down to Karachi for reporting on duty on 5th May, 1982 but he was not taken on duty and hence he filed a grievance petition against the termi--nation of his services. The learned Labour Court has rejected the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that the respondent-Company was fully entitled to terminate the services of the appellant on one month's notice as it was unreasonable to expect the Company to wait until either the appellant was acquitted of the murder charge or at least after he was released on bait; in which case the appellant would presumably have to make frequent visits to his native place for the purposes of attending the case against him. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal.
2. Clause (1) of Standing Order 12 entitles an employer to terminate the services of even a permanent workman provided that notice of one month of the termination of services is given to the workman or pay in lieu of notice is given to him, and further the termination of services by an order in writing which indicate the reasons for the termination of his services. In the instant case all the three requirements have been fulfilled. The appellant admittedly was given one month's wages in lieu of notice. Furthermore the termination of services, was in writing and gives the reasons or grounds for termination, these being that the appellant had been arrested in a murder case, that in the circumstances it was uncertain when he would b released and would report back for duty to the company, and that in the circumstances, the company was unable to wait indefinitely for the appellant to report for duty. On somewhat similar facts, the Punjab Labour Appel--late Tribunal in the case reported as Zulfiqar Ali v. Premier Tobacco Co. (1981 PLC 293), rejected the grievance petition of a workman whose services had been terminated by the employer for absence from duty. The appellant herein had made representation to the company against the termination of his services alleging that in fact termination of services was in the nature of dismissal from service and as no charge-sheet was served upon him nor any enquiry was held in the matter the dismissal was invalid. The respondent---Company, by its letter, dated 6th April, 1982, refuted these allegations and pointed out this was a case of termination of services simplicitor as the company could not wait until the appellant is acquitted from the murder charges. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative of the appellant work--man, even now was unable to state whether the appellant had been acquitted of the murder charge. If he has not been acquitted. He would be required to attend the case against him at his native place. This would involve frequent absence on his part from his duty if he is taken back by the respondent Company. The respondent-Company cannot be expected to take back a workman in such circumstances.
3. It was contended by Mr. S. P. Lodhi the learned, Representative for the appellant, that the appellant had submitted application for extension of leave in the month of January, and again in the month of February but the respondent-Company, neither rejected the request of the appellant for grant of leave nor granted him leave and instead terminated his services. The termination of services itself should be considered to be a rejection by the management of the appellant's request for grant of leave. As already indica--ted, the respondent-Company had clearly stated in the order terminating the services of the appellant the reason why the company felt it necessary to terminate the services of the appellant.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.