DECISION The petitioner, Allah Ditta vas employed as a worker in the Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala. He was dismissed from service on 30-3-1976 on the charge of absence without leave for more than ten days. He has filed this petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging the order of dismissal, claiming re-instatement with back benefits.
The petitioner was arrested in a criminal case on 2-3-76. He was released on bail on 29-3-1976.
Obviously, he was unable to attend to his duties. On 13-3-76 the Time Office made a report that the petitioner was absent for more than ten loss. The Labour Officer framed a charge-sheet, and sent it to the petitioner at his home address. The report of the Postman was that the petitioner was in jail.
In spite of this report the Mills Manager, appointed an Inquiry Officer, who recorded the statement of a Clerk of Time Office and held the petitioner guilty. On the basis of this report the petitioner was dismissed on 30-3-76. The order of dismissal is completely in violation of natural justice. It is a proved fact that after two or three days of his arrest, the petitioner sent an application to the Mills Management to grant him leave with effect from 2-3-76 till the release of the petitioner on bail. Mr. Muhammad Idrees (P. W. 1) the General Secretary of the Trade Union in the establishment went to see the petitioner in jail. He says that he obtained a leave application the copy of which is Exh. P-1 and sent it to the Management under a registered cover. The postal receipt is Exh. D-2. The evidence of Muhammad Idrees leaves no doubt in my mind that the petitioner applied for leave.
The Management did not take any action on this application. It was a reasonable explanation for absence. Ordinarily, the leave should have been sanctioned. The- charge of absence without leave was uncalled for.
3. It was within the knowledge of the Management that the petitioner was in jail. This fact has been admitted by Mr. Waseem A. Farooqi, the Labour Officer of the Management. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the Management to inform the petitioner in jail that departmental inquiry was being conducted against him. No effort was made to serve any notice on the petitioner in jail. It is clear that he was not given any chance of defence.
4. The report of the Time Office was not brought to the notice of the Mills Manager. No order was passed to frame a charge-sheet against him. The charge-sheet has been signed by the Labour Officer. He was not competent to do so. In case no reply was received the matter should have been brought to the notice of Mills Manager. As the initial orders were not passed by the Mills Manager, therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal.
5. For the above reasons the petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to re-instate the petitioner with back benefits.