' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 14th March, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad.
2. The appellant was a clerk in Fair Price Shop. He was dismissed on the allegation of remaining absent without leave from 1st April, 1982 to 5th June, 1982. He was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held against him. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any defect in the enquiry proceedings. No copy of the application for leave, and receipt of delivering or sending the application by registered post are on the record. The respondent was thus justified in dismissing the appellant.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dismissal order Exh. P. 12 was passed by an incompetent authority and not by the Managing Director. This is not so. Exh. P/12 is not the dismissal order but is a letter informing the appellant that he had been dismissed by the Managing Director. So, Exh. P/12 is an intimation and not the dismissal order.
4. Generally a dismissed person is considered as debarred from employment. Absence for more than ten days, no doubt, is misconduct but not so severe as to attract the penalty of debarring one from future employment. The extreme penalty of dismissal is awarded to be saved from the payment of benefits of past service and not with the intention of debarring one from further employment. I, therefore, direct that the appellant shall not be considered as debarred from further employment any where else but shall have no claim for past service benefits of any kind whatsoever. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.