DECISION The instant appeal arises out of an order by IInd Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated 30-10-1983, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, Sikander Hayat Khan.
2. Sikander Hayat Khan was a worker with the respondents, National Motors Limited; and he, on 16- 6-1981 was allowed seven days leave. He proceeded to his home town, Mardan. He fell ill and has sent an application for further leave. On 9-7-1981, he was served with a show-cause notice for deliberately remaining absent. A medical certificate was furnished on 9-7-1981. Subsequently, on 5-8-1981, the appellant reported for duty alongwith Fitness Certificate but was not allowed to resume duty and instead was served with a charge-sheet which was replied by the appellant and his explanation was not accepted. On 8-8-1981,he was arrested in case F.I.R. No.97 of 1981 under section 307 read with section 34, P.P.C. By the Chakiwara Police Station. The respondent by a letter, dated 11-8-1981 served a letter through the Superintendent of Central Jail on the appellant calling him to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 20-8-1981 at 10-00 a.m., failing which his services would be terminated. On 23-8-1981,his services were terminated simplicitor on the ground that they could not wait for completion of the enquiry for an indefinite period and the post could not be kept vacant for an indefinite
3. The respondents filed reply statement alleging therein that only seven days leave was granted to the appellant which was consumed by him. He was to attend the duty on 25-6-1981 which he failed to do. The appellant remained absent unauthorisedly without approval of the management upto 9-7-1981, and, therefore, he was served with a notice. He was arrested by the Police in a case for attempt to commit murder. His services were terminated by an order under section 12 (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
4. I have heard the learned counsel of the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The contention of the appellant is that the order of termination was illegal and unlawful and was by way of victimization of the appellant for his trade union activities. However, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced to prove that at the relevant time the appellant was holding any post of the workers Union in the respondent Establishment. It was also contended that the order of termination of the appellant was improper as already domestic enquiry was instituted and it was not completed when suddenly his services were terminated simplicitor. At this stage, a Judgement from the IInd Senior Civil Judge and the Assistant Sessions Judge was submitted before this Tribunal. It is very important to read and tally the dates of the F.I.R. As enunciated in the Judgment which is placed on record. It reads as -"that on 14-6-1981 one Afsar Ali lodged report with Police Chakiwara that he is student of Intermediate Urdu College, Karachi and is living at the address given above. Sikander Hayat is related to him. Due to engagement of his younger sister, Sikander Hayat is not on good terms with him. Today at 7-30 p.m. After passing urine on the corner of his street, he was proceeding to his house, Sikander Hayat came from behind alongwith Shaukat and Muhammad Irfan. He was having Churri in his hand, he asked Shaukat and Irfan to catch complainant and do not allow him to run away. He will finish him. The complainant tried to run away but Shaukat and Irfan caught hold of him. Sikander Hayat then attacked him with Chhuri several times on left lower portion, second on chest which he took on his left hand and then he made several attacks on other parts of the body. Shahzad and other persons of Mohallah witnessed the incident. The mother of complainant brought him to hospital." In this F.I.R. The appellant was involved and he personally delivered injuries to Afsar Ali on 14-6-1981. He proceeded on leave on 16-6-1981 to his native village. In other words, he took leave on account of this misdeed by him and ran away to Mardan. He returned in the month of August, 198, when he was arrested. He pretended to be ill and sent a Medical Certificate. But, the fact is that he sought leave to disappear for committing of the offence of injuring Afsar Ali on 14-6-1981 and immediately ran away to Mardan, his native place. He hoodwinked the officers of'' the respondent Company and furnished a second Medical certificate. However, a chance was given to him to appear before the enquiry officer but he could not do it. The main criminal case against him is that he physically injured the complainant, Afsar Ali and hence, it was presumed by the respondent that he would not be let-of Therefore, the domestic enquiry was suspended and the appellant as discharged from service as termination simplicator. There was no harm committed by the respondent company and they could not keep the vacancy f Time-keeper vacant for the release of the appellant from criminal case where he was directly involved. The Judgment of the criminal case is produced wherein he was given benefit of doubt but the benefit that he got would be dependent on the set of the circumstances and evidence brought on record. The evidence must have changed etc. But so far his termination of service from the respondent establishment was quite in order and it requires no further arguments.
6. The regular enquiry could not have been completed, therefore, it was necessary to terminate his service simplicitor. I have read the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and I feel that this order is in consonance of the Law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.