DECISION The services of the appellant, who was employed as Procurement Assistant in the respondent establishment, were terminated on 7th June, 1978. He challenged the order of termination of his services before the learned First Labour Court which directed his re-instatement in service with back benefits. The respondent management preferred an appeal against the said order to this Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed. The respondent management had also filed a Constitutional Petition against the orders of this Tribunal but the said petition was. Summarily dismissed. By the High Court. In consequence of the said orders the appellant was taken back in employment by the respondent establishment with effect from 11th August, 1980 and it appears that he worked in the Procurement Section upto 16th November, 1980 when he was transferred to Juna Bandar Joint Venture Project by the respondent Company. Subsequently, on 18th March, 1982, the services of the appellant were terminated on the ground that they were no longer required. The appellant challenged the fresh orders of termina--tion of his services through another grievance petition filed before the learned Labour Court . This second grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Fourth Labour Court vide its order, dated 19th November, 1981, by reason of the absence of the appellant, though the matter was fixed for cross-examination. On appeal to this Tribunal, in the second round of litigation, the order of dismissal of the appellant's grievance petition was set aside by this Tribunal, vide its order, dated 19th February, 1982, and the case was remanded to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits. On remand, the learned Labour Court , by its decision given on 2nd September, 1982, allowed the grievance petition of the appellant and directed his re-instatement in service but granted him only fifty per cent. Of the back benefits on the ground that the appellant was responsible for much of the delay in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court and numerous adjournments were granted at his request.
2. Both the parties, i. e. The appellant as well as the Company, filed separate appeals against the aforesaid decision of the learned Labour Court . The appeal of the appellant was directed against the reduction in the amount of back benefits awarded to him while the appeal of the Company was directed against the reinstatement in service of the appellant. The appeal of the Company has been dismissed today by reason of the non-appearance and default of the Company and their learned Advocate, Mr. Syed Hassan Zafar, who appeared much later during the course of the arguments of the present appeal.
3. It was contended by Mr. M. M. Jillani that since the learned Labour Court has held that the termination of services of the appellant was unjustified the appellant was entitled to award of full back benefits. He further submitted that the observations of the learned Labour Court that the appellant was mainly responsible for the delay in the disposal of his grievance petition, that during the pendency of the case `he had left Pakistan and that numerous adjournments were obtained at his instance are not based on facts on the record. An examination of the record of the learned Labour Court indicates that the appellant was present on all the hearings of the case except the hearing for 19th November, 1982, when his grievance petition was dismissed by the learned Labour Court for default, but this order was set aside in appeal by this Tribunal and the case remanded to it for disposal on merits. It has also been stoutly denied by Mr. Jillani that the appellant ever left Pakistan during the pendency of his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court as wrongly observed by the learned Labour Court . It is not known on what basis the learned Labour Court has made the observation that the appellant had gone out of Pakistan. The application of Mr. Jillani, dated 19th November, 1981, for adjournment of the case merely states that the appellant had gone to participate in the "Tableegh Programme" alongwith the "Tableeghi Jammat" and is expected-to be back by the last week of November, but no--where states that the appellant had gone out of Pakistan. The fact, however, remains that the appellant was ,absent on the hearing fixed by the learned Labour Court for 19th November, 1981 and that he had obtained no permission from the Court or. Even given intimation to the Court while proceeding out side Karachi in connection with the "Tableegh Programme". Mr. Jillani, sought to argue that the mere absence of the appellant on 19th November, 1981 did not constitute such default as to impose any drastic penalty on the appellant and in this behalf he sought support from the order of this Tribunal, dated 9th February, 1982, setting aside the order of the learned Labour Court dismissing the appellant's grievance petition for default. That order discussed the issue of dismissal of the petition issue for default and the grounds for its restoration but does not deal with the whether an employee is entitled to full back benefits even if he remained absent from the proceedings without permission, when he is fully aware of the date of hearing and could reasonably attend the hearing. In the instant case, the appellant was admittedly present on the hearing fixed for 19th October, 1981, when the matter was adjourned to 19th November, 1981 for his cross-examination and production of certain record by the Company. In spite of the knowledge that 19th November, 1981 was fixed for his cross---examination, the appellant neither attended the Court on 19th November, 1981 nor did he obtain permission from the Court for proceeding outside Karachi. Participation in "Tableegh Work" is undoubtedly a pious work for a good Muslim but when one is required to attend a Court, the permis--sion of the Court ought to be obtained before it is undertaken and embark--ed upon on the day of the hearing. Since the appellant failed to obtain such permission from the learned Labour Court and failed even to intimate the learned Labour Court that he was proceeding for "Tableegh Work" I would agree with the finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant, in these circumstances, is entitled only to half the back benefits as granted by the learned Labour Court: The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.