SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a Despatch Clerk in the All Industrial Institute at Lahore.
He was allowed leave on medical ground without pay from 4-4-1979 to 5-5-1979. On the expiry of this leave he did not resume his duty. On 6-5-1979, the Principal of the Institute called for his explanation. On this he applied for further leave. His request was granted and his leave was extended till 12-5-1979 'as a very special case'. Apparently, he rejoined his duty on the expiry of extended period. On 3-6-1979, he again absented himself from duty. On 5-6-1979, the Principal one more called for his explanation. Soon thereafter the petitioner applied for leave on medical ground.
In support of his application he submitted a medical certificate issued by a private practitioner, namely, Dr. Farasat Ali Syed, on 8-6-1979. According to the certificate he was suffering from a serious attack of Lumbago and also that he had been advised rest for a month with effect from 3- 6-1979. This certificate was found unreliable by the Principal who by his letter, dated 12-6-1979 directed the petitioner to join his duty immediately. Apparently, the petitioner did not comply with the said direction. On 12-6-1979, the Principal asked the petitioner to appear before Dr. Ali Maqadas Syed for a medical check-up. On 23-6-1979, the petitioner informed the Principal that he had gone to his village on account of sickness and that it was impossible for him to appear before Dr. Ali Muqaddas Syed at Lahore. Nevertheless, he made a request that the said doctor be asked to examine him up in his village. On 25-6-1979 the Principal wrote a letter to the petitioner in which a number of allegations amounting to misconduct were made against him and he was asked to appear before an Inquiry Committee, comprising the Vice-Principal and Head Assistant, on 30-6- 1979. By a letter, dated 27-6-1979 the petitioner informed the Principal that he was unable to appear before the Inquiry Committee on the appointed day on account of sickness. On 3-7-1979, the Principal one again asked the petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Committee on 7-7-1979 and warned him that on his failure to appear before the Committee ex parte decision would be taken against him. Despite this warning the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. Another letter was sent to him by the Principal. In this letter the allegations against the petitioner were one again set out in detail and he was asked to furnish his explanation. By the letter, dated 3-9-1979, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 10-9-1979. The petitioner again failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer. Subsequently, on 1-10-1979, the principal made a decision to dismiss him.
2. After his dismissal from service, the petitioner moved the Labour Court to seek relief against his dismissal from service. After considering all the circumstances the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the continuous absence of the petitioner from duty was unjustified and constituted misconduct. Accordingly, it upheld the order of dismissal. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which affirmed the findings of the Labour Court and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has snow come in writ jurisdiction to this Court to challenge the orders of the learned Labour Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
3. The question whether absence of the petitioner from duty was justified or not was one of fact which fell to be decided on the basis of the evidence available on the record. The learned Labour Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal concurrently held that his absence was not justified.
In writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in judgment upon their findings in this regard. It is also to be noticed that despite various opportunities given to him in this regard, the petitioner did not care to appear before the Inquiry Committee and the Inquiry Officer. Thus he allowed his case to go by default. Apart from that to support his absence from duty he produced a medical certificate. On inquiry by the principal the doctor who issued the certificate stated that the petitioner had come to him only one and that he never came to him again.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was never served with any charge-sheet. This is not correct. The letter by which he was asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer/Inquiry Committee contained complete details of the allegations levelled against him. In any event, had he cared to appear before the Inquiry Committee/ Inquiry Officer he could have asked for further details in the event he thought that those already provided to him in the said letter were not specific enough for the preparation of his defence.
5. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.
A.A.