DECISION ' The instant appeal is directed against the order of the Labour Court No, II, Karachi, dated 31st January, 1984. The Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition by one Behram Khan under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant, Behram Khan was serving as a watchman or Chowkidar with the respondent establishment. On 1st September, 1982, due to severe headache he requested Khan Afral, Chief Security Guard for leave which was deferred on the next date. The appellant did not obtain any leave and proceeded to N.-W. F. P. He did not inform the respondent establishment but according to the appellant he was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Muhammad Shafiq and this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent establishment on 10th November, 1982. He was directed to bring fitness certificate. The said fitness certificate was submitted on 30th December, 1982. He subsequently learnt that he was dismissed for misconduct for absenting from duty from 5th September, 1982.
3. The respondents in their reply statement pleaded that the petition of the appellant was not maintainable under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, as he was Chowkidar doing no manual work and as such not a workman. No right was guaranteed or secured to him under I. R.
0., 1969. The appellant was exclusively employed as a watchman and did not perform any other duty. Since 5th September, 1982 onwards the appellant absented without intimation and without approval of the respondent establishment and left Karachi for his home town without sending any information. Consequently, a letter was issued on 14th September, 1982 with regard to his unauthorised absence with effect from 5th September 1985 asking him to report on duty immediately failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. However, this letter was not delivered and the postal authorities returned the notice. The notice was sent on his Karachi address. No further address was given by the appellant. The necessary show-cause notice and the charge-sheet was sent to him and since he did not attend, the charge-sheet and the letter was published in Daily `Jang', dated 18th October, 1982. Then, an ex parte enquiry was held against the appellant and in pursuance of the same he was dismissed. The dismissal order was also published in Daily 'Jang', dated 3rd November, 1982.
4. The appellant examined himself and was cross-examined and Mr. Herold A. Meik was examined on behalf of the respondent establishment and he was duly cross-examined by the appellant. The appeal was argued by the learned counsel, Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for the appellant and Mr. S. Qamruddin Hassan, Advocate, for the respondent establishment.
5. The certificate issued by Dr. Muhammad Shafiq on 23rd October, 1982 is that the appellant suffered from "nerves" illness and some medicines were prescribed and he was advised rest for 10 days. Then, another certificate was issued on 25th December, 1982, wherein he was found fit to resume duties. From the text of the above certificates the appellant actually did not suffer from any serious trouble and it was a nerves break down and some medicines were prescribed. It is to be noted that he left his job on 5th September, 1982, whereas he was not admitted in the hospital but he consulted Dr. Muhammad Shafiq on 23rd October, 1982. It was after one month that he realized that he was to inform his employer. The serious illness is not proved by the medical certificate supplied by the appellant. His admission is that he went without informing his Security Officer and the Management when the Security Officer told him to apply for leave on the next day. On the next day, he simply left for Peshawar side and was out of sight. The address given by him is through some body, a shopkeeper, situated in Old Golimar, Karachi. No other address he supplied to the Management. The Management got published the charge-sheet and the proceedings in Daily `Jang'. It appears on the face of it that the respondent-establishment discharged their obligation as required by Law. It is to be noted that corresponding obligation does lie. On the shoulders of the appellant as is observed in Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah and others . His Lordship, Mr. Justice Haleem observed :- "Workman also correspondingly being under obligation to keep management informed of his whereabouts, failure to do so amounts to impeding obligation of Management to afford him opportunity of being heard and workman cannot complain of decision having been taken in his absence.-Industrial Relations Ordinance."
6. The Labour Court has dealt with the non-maintainability of the grievance application and from the evidence he has come to the conclusion that the appellant was a watchman or a Chowkidar to look after the machines lying at the site and he did not do any manual work. Although the contention of the appellant is that he used to search the incoming people to allow them through the gate, but this is not substantiated by the management or any other evidence to corroborate him. He had disbelieved it. Rightly so, I also disbelieve it. He was a mere watchman and as such the grievance application is not maintainable. Since the management held enquiry under Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, they are not estopped to do so as there is no estoppel against the Statute, While assessing the enquiry held against him ex parte the management has taken all the necessary steps to inform the appellant, about the proceedings. Even in Daily `Jang' they had published both the charge-sheets and the dismissal order of the appellant.
7. Having gone through the record and the proceedings, I feel that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Labour Court and hence, I dismiss this appeal. PLD 1981 SC 2251 1