DECISION This is an appeal against the award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. II, whereby the learned Court ordered the re-instatement of the respondent with full back benefits. Mr. Nanji, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contended in the first place that the application was not maintainable as the respondent had not followed the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 18(6), which is mandatory. In this connection he relied on Saleemsons' case (1). It is true the case supports the contention of Mr. Nanji. On the other hand, Mr. S. P. Lodhi, for the respondent, relied on my Decision, which is not reported so far, in the case of Muhammad Hussain v. United Distributors, , decided in May, 1973. The facts of the case of Saleemsons are quite distinguishable. The point for decision before the Sind & Baluchistan High Court was only the question of interpretation of Standing Order 18. At the time when Saleemsons' case was decided section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not there. The worker at that time could only move the Industrial Court for redress of his grievances in respect of any provision of Standing Orders Ordinance. The right conferred, under section 34 of the I. R. O. of 1969, on a worker is very wide. He could move the Labour Court on violation of any right guaranteed to him under any law or settlement. The right guaranteed to a worker under A section 34 has now been withdrawn by an amendment. I would hold that the respondent could apply under section 34 of the Ordinance without following the procedure laid down under Standing Order 18.
2. Mr. Shaukat A. Nanji in the next place contended that the learned Court has wrongly interpreted Exh. B-2 so as to hold that thumb-impression is not that of Sher Zada, the respondent, before me. In this connection, Mr. Nanji submitted that it makes no difference if the thumb-impression of the respondent was on the side of the address given of the appellant In my opinion it does make a difference if the thumb- impression was that of the appellant. It should have been on the other side where the address of the appellant was given and not on the side where address of the sender was given.
3. Lastly, Mr. Nanji contended that respondent having joined on the 9th of September 1970, even if the Medical Certificate is treated to be an application for leave the respondent cannot be said to have conform the spirit and letter of Rule 8 of Standing Orders Ordinance. I am, however, inclined to give an interpretation to Rule 8 which can be said to be beneficial and reasonable to the workers. Mr. Lodhi submitted that some time must be allowed to the respondent for joining. The respondent had reported on 2nd of September 1970, and thereafter was allowed to be taken back on 9th of September 1970. This fact would establish that the Company had accepted the explanation whatever it may have been of the respondent. I accept the contention of Mr. Lodhi in preference to that of Mr. Nanji. All that a worker is required under Rule 8, as it now stands, is that if the worker were joined after the expiry of the leave he has to show cause as to why he did so. It is, no doubt, for the Company to accept the explanation or not to accept. In the present case, the fact that the respondent was (1) PLD 1973 Kar. 1 allowed to join on the 9th of September, 1970 is a circumstance in favour ofl the respondent that the Company accepted his explanation. No other point was urged by Mr. Nanji. I 4. The appeal is dismissed and the award of the learned Labour Court is maintained.
Appeal dismissed.