DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 7-11-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,4 at Karachi, whereby the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Ch. Lateef Saghar, learned counsel for the appellants. Respondent and her representative called absent without intimation. I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the. Case.
3. The brief facts of the case appear to be that the respondent was admittedly employed as worker by the appellants. On 22-6-1989 she was charge-sheeted for having remained absent without intimation since 11-6-1989. In the domestic enquiry she was found guilty and was, therefore, dismissed vide order, dated 26-7-1989. After serving grievance notice upon the appellants the respondent filed grievance petition which was decided in the above terms.
4. The learned Labour Court exercising its powers under subsection (4) of section 25-A of IRO 1969, looked beyond the enquiry proceedings in order to ascertain whether order was passed in good faith and was legal. He came to the conclusion that though respondent had produced Medical Certificate about illness and two witnesses in support of her contention but the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer in his report and, therefore, he did not appear to have acted fairly and impartially.
5. It may be pointed that the respondent was charge-sheeted for having remained absent from 11- 6-1989 vide letter, dated 22-6-1989. Thus the period for which she is alleged to have been absent without intimation was from 11-6-1989 to 22-6-1989. However, the Media Certificate, dated 19-7- 1989, that she had produced before the Enquiry Officer shows that she was suffering from 'typhoid' and was advised rest from 25-6-1989 to 15-7-1989. She alleges to have conveyed about her illness to the management through a co-worker Shahzia Bano, who states, that she had gone to the house of the respondent on 25-6-1989 when she found the respondent to be ill and she asked her to intimate the management but she forgot. The other witness produced by the respondent is Miss Ruheena Naz, who also states to have gone with Shahzia Bano the house of the respondent. Even if these statements and certificates are taken to be correct they pertain to the period for which the respondent was not charge-sheeted and do not cover the period of charge-sheet 11-6-1989 to 22- 6-1989.
6. The respondent, in her statement before the Enquiry Officer, stated that on 11-6-1989 she was gate-stopped by the Chowkidar, when she came to appellants establishment and, therefore, she did not come again, because she was afraid she might meet with the same insult. She clearly stated that she fell ill on 25-11-1989. However in her grievance application and grievance notice, the respondent has not stated that she was gate-stopped on 11-6-1989, but stated that she fell ill on 11- 6-1989. She had further alleged, that the Enquiry Officer did not accept Certificate and Enquiry Officer did not record her statement or that of her witnesses. However in the cross-examination she had admitted that Mst. Shahzia Bano was examined in the domestic enquiry and that she had signed each and every page of the enquiry proceedings which, as pointed above, show that Medical Certificate was accepted by the Enquiry Officer and so also the statements of the respondent's witnesses and her evidence were recorded. The learned Labour Court has also pointed out that applicant after having participated in the enquiry proceedings could not challenge the same or the report but held the enquiry to be partial and un-fair for the reasons that I have pointed above.
7. On the assessm ent of the evidence on record, it will be seen, that the stands taken by the respondent before the enquiry office and in the grievance petition are contradictory. She had not produced any evidence to show about her illness from 11-6-1989 to 22-6-1989, the period for which she was charge-sheeted. Even if the Certificate is accepted to be true and evidence of two witnesses is also believed then also she had fallen ill on or after 25-6-1989 and not before that date. I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has mentioned the evidence of the respondent and her two witnesses and also considered the Certificate in the report and has committed no illegality or partiality in coming to the conclusion that the respondent remained absent from 11-6-1989 to 22-6-1989 without intimation. It is misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(e) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the punishment of such misconduct is provided in the Standing Order 15(2) and 'dismissal' is one of the punishments provided therein.
8. To sum up all this discussion, it would be clear that the respondent had admittedly remained absent from 11-6-1989 to 22-6-1989 for more than ten days without intimation or permission and after domestic enquiry which, appears to be fair and proper, she was found guilty and awarded legal punishment by the appellants. The order of Labour Court appears to be passed on misreading of the evidence and is therefore, not maintainable. I accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of learned Labour Court.