DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned I Vth Labour Court, given on 10th March, 1983, mainly allowing the grievance petition of the appellant against his dismissal from service, and directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate him in service but awarding him only seventy- five per cent of back benefits on the ground that the appellant was partly responsible for the delay occasioned in the decision of this case.
2. The facts of this case, shortly stated, are that the appellant was employed as Junior Clerk/Time- keeper in the respondent-Corporation with effect from 12th March, 1978. It is the case of the appellant that on 10th November, 1981 he left for Swat on receiving telephonic information that his grandfather was seriously ill. It is an admitted position that the appellant left for Swat without obtaining any leave from the respondent-Corporation. It is further the case of the appellant that at Swat he fell ill and was under the treatment of Dr. Muhammad Iqbal till 26th November, 1981 and on recovery from his illness he returned to Karachi and resumed his duties on 29th November, 1981.
The appellant was issued a show-cause notice, dated 13th January, 1982, requiring him to explain his unauthorised absence from his duties with effect from 10th November, 1981 to 28th November, 1981. The appellant submitted an explanation to the show-cause notice but as it was not found satisfactory, the management appointed Mr. Syed Janab Hussain Naqvi, Deputy Manager (Finance), as Enquiry Officer to look into the charge against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer took a very charitable view of the absence of the appellant observing that the appellant was not aware of the rules of the respondent-Corporation and that moreover he seems to have fallen ill in Swat and, accordingly, recommended that he may be left off. However the management decided to dismiss the appellant from service, vide order, dated 18th May, 1982.
3. The learned Labour Court held the dismissal orders of the appellant as invalid on two grounds, firstly, that the act of unauthorised absence, which was the basis for the dismissal orders, was not brought to the notice of the appellant within one month of the commission of the said act or the said at being brought to the notice of the employer and, secondly, that the absence of the appellant was not wilful and did not involve any mens rea on his part.
4. The l. R. O. Envisages that grievance petitions preferred under section 25-A, I. R.
0., should be expeditiously disposed of and if possible within seven days. However, in the instant case, the grievance petition of the appellant was decided after more than seven months. Part of the responsibility for the delay in the decision must be borne by the appellant as observed on the learned Labour. Court for certain adjournments were granted by the Court either on account of the absence of the appellant. There is, however, a stronger ground for the appellant not being granted the full back benefits. As already pointed out the appellant left for Swat and remained absent for a period of exceeding ten days without applying for leave or even giving any intimation to the respondent-Corporation about his absence. In the circumstances, the appellant cannot be held to be entirely free from blame and would not, accordingly, b entitled to full back benefits.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.