DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of Labour Court No. I, Karachi, dated 29-8-1992, dismissing the application filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. It has arisen in the following circumstances:
2. The appellant was working as an Accounts Assistant with the respondent since 1982. The version of the appellant is that he was summoned by a Director of the Company who had asked him to tender his resignation which he declined to do. The version of the respondent is that he had unauthorisedly remained absent from the aforesaid date for a number of weeks and sent a grievance notice. He was served with a charge-sheet as to why he should not be proceeded against for unauthorised absence for more than ten days vide letter dated 21-3-1990. The explanation not being acceptable, enquiry was ordered vide letter dated 10-4-1990. The date for enquiry was fixed on 19-4-1990.
3. The matter was adjourned on an application of the appellant, on health ground, to 5-5-1990.
4. The appellant did not turn up on the -due date and instead proceeded with his family members to Lahore, allegedly on the ground that his mother-in---law was ill. He had, however, sent a letter which according to the respondents was received after the date fixed for the enquiry. The result was that the proceedings were held ex parte. As the absence was far beyond ten days he was dismissed from service.
5. Because of the disturbed conditions existing in those days the dismissal letter was not delivered, and another letter was repeated, in which a typographical error crept in as to the date. Because nothing turns on the same, it is not necessary to pause on that score.
6. Admittedly the appellant had not turned up for duty from 21-2-1990 till 25-3-1990. On his own showing he had not sent any application even for the grant of leave. As to the allegation that he had been threatened to resign, we have nothing in that context beyond the mere words of the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that he reported for duty and was not allowed to work.
7. To compound the difficulties confronting him the appellant in spite of due service and adjournment as sought by him, did not partake in the domestic enquiry, which was ex parte. We do not know the nature of his mother-in-law's ailment, or the urgency of the trip undertaken, he should not have taken such a non-challant approach to a threat which could put his job in jeopardy. The law is very clear that if a workman fails to attend the domestic enquiry without any compelling circumstances, he will have only to thank himself for the consequences.
8. I am afraid the appellant was himself instrumental in his own fall and discomfiture. There is no merit in the appeal. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.