DECISION ' This appeal arose from the order dated 13-7-1999 of Sindh Labour Court No,V1, Hyderabad. The appellant's case is that he was employed as Operator Auto Cone on 14-7-1989 in the respondent- Mill at Kotri. Despite his satisfactory performance ever since the date of his appointment, he was charge-sheeted for unauthorized absence from duty for more then 10 days. He gave his reply denying the charges, but somehow respondents Management were unsatisfied with his reply.
Consequently the enquiry was instituted against him and Salim Ahmad was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer soon became the target of the appellant's accusation of prejudice etc. He was therefore, replaced by Mr. Muhammad Kausar, the Labour Welfare Officer of the respondent-Company. After completion of the enquiry the appellant was served with Second Show-Cause Notice accompanied by Enquiry Report. He was ultimately dismissed from service on 22-8-1997 obviously on the basis of the Enquiry Report. Being unsatisfied with the Enquiry Report, the appellant found faults in it saying that he was not given proper opportunity of being heard etc. Even though on his complaint the very Enquiry Officer was changed. Yet he remained dissatisfied.
The appellant served a grievance notice on the Respondents Management on 10-9-1997 but his grievance remained unredressse d. He then filed grievance petition on 29-9-1997 which was dismissed by the impugned order hereinabove.
2. In reply statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Mill, the plea taken by the Mill Management was that the appellant remained absent from duty from 15-6-1997 unauthorized as no leave was granted to him for the said period of his absence. He was accordingly charge-sheeted vide the respondents-Management's letter, dated 23-6-1997. However, his application for grant of one month's leave with effect from 15-6-1997 was received on 24-6-1997. It was replied by the Management's letter dated 9-7-1997 wherein it was made clear :o the appellant that since he had remained absent from duty from 15-6-1997 without prior approval of the Management, his application for one month's leave was rejected. But at the same time he was required to resume duty failing which further necessary action would be taken against him. He failed to resume his duty up to 21-7-1997. Instead he appeared on 22-7-1997 and requested for payment of, his salary and necessary permission to resume duty which was allowed. On the same day i,e, 22-7-1997 he gave his reply to the charge-sheet. Since his reply was not satisfactory he was required to attend the enquiry fixed on 24-7-1997. Somehow in his application dated 26-7-1997 addressed to the Factory Manager he made allegations of partiality against the Enquiry Officer who, as has been stated above, was changed on his request. The new Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry de novo and submitted his report to the General Manager which was ultimately made the basis for dismissal of the appellant from service.
3. Both the parties filed Affidavit-in-Evidence in support of their respective version of the case-- appellant Ahmad Khan supporting his version by his Affidavit-in-Evidence and Mr. Muhammad Kausar, Labour Welfare Officer of the Mills in support of the respondents-Management's case filed his Affidavit-in-Evidence. Besides them,, the statement of one Feroze Shall Khattak (at page 197 R&P) was also recorded.
4. I gave a patient hearing to the learned counsel of both the parties-Mr. Mehmood Hussain Siddiqui for the appellant and Mr. M.A. Talpur on behalf of the respondents-Mill. I have also perused the relevant documents available in the Case File.
5. In my opinion the only point to be decided in this case was whether the dismissal of the appellant was legal and justified. It is an admitted position that the appellant was dismissed from service by order, dated 22-8-1997 (page 103 R&P). It is clear from this Order that the reason for the appellant's dismissal was his unauthorised absence from duty for more than 10 days. Elaborating the position further the Order shows that he was charge-sheeted and enquiry was ordered against him vide letter dated 27-7-1997. But he failed to give any reply. As disclosed in the Order even the Enquiry Officer was changed on request of the appellant and he was required to appear before the new Enquiry Officer (Mr. Muhammad Kausar) on 5-8-1997, the termination Order further indicates, the new Enquiry Officer after holding the necessary enquiry found the appellant guilty of misconduct. Consequently Second Show-Cause Notice dated 7-8-1997 was issued requiring him to give reply within 7 days but his reply was not received until 22-8-1997 and as such he was dismissed from service with effect from 23-8-1997.
6. In support of respondent's version taken in the aforesaid Termination Order they filed Affidavit- in-Evidence of Muhammad Kausar, Enquiry Officer and the Labour Welfare Officer of the respondents-Mill (vide page 128 R&P). He has sated in his evidence that the appellant absented from duty from 15-6-1997 to 25-6-1997 i,e, more than 10 days, from which he was charge-sheeted on 28-6-1997. According to him the appellant's application dated 24-6-1997 for grant of one month's leave was received on 25-6-1997. His request was rejected through Registered letter, dated 9-7-1997 and he was directed to report for duty immediately failing which necessary legal action would be taken against him. Since he did not reply, the witness further goes to say, hence Enquiry Letter dated 16-7-1997 was issued to him directing him to be present for the enquiry on 24- 7-1997. It is thus clear even from the appellant's own letter for grant of one month's leave that he required leave with effect from 15-6-1997 though formal request for the said leave was made by him subsequently by letter dated 24-6-1997. His learned advocate in course of his arguments frankly admitted that he availed leave with effect form 15-6-1997 though it was not formally sanctioned to him. His request coupled with the Statement of Management's witness Muhammad Kausar that he had applied for 10 days leave with effect from 15-6-1997 to 24-6-1997 was rejected by Registered letter, dated 9-7-1997, clearly proves that the leave availed of the appellant was not only unauthorised but was for more than 10 days. As provided in sub-clause (e) of clause (3) of Standing Order 15 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 absence without leave for more than 10 days has been treated as a misconduct. As such the appellant having availed more than 10 days unauthorized leave was obviously liable to punishment for misconduct. Even then domestic enquiry was held against him not by the Enquiry Officer (Salim Ahmed) who was alleged by the appellant to be prejudiced against him and hence replaced by Muhammad Kausar but by the said new Enquiry Officer who according to Enquiry Report submitted by him found the appellant guilty of misconduct i,e,, having remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for more than 10 days. Following the submission of Enquiry Report Second show cause notice dated 7-8-1997 was issued to the appellant requiring him to give its reply within 7 days but his reply was not received up to 22-8-1997 and hence the order of dismissal was passed against him.
7. Appellant in his Affidavit-in-Evidence had raised objection against holding of illegal enquiry against him besides denying that he ever received Charge-Sheet. Thus appellant's statement on oath was packed with contradictions. On one hand it was clear from the record that he fully participated in the enquiry so much so that on his request even Enquiry Officer was changed but on the other hand he has stated in his affidavit that he raised objection to hold the enquiry against him and denied that he ever received any Charge-Sheet. Moreover his learned advocate admitted in course of his arguments that appellant had left his duty on 15-6-1.997 without getting the leave sanctioned. Even appellant himself has admitted in cross-examination that it was necessary before leaving the duties to obtain the sanction of the leave. He further admits that his application for leave was unjustifiably rejected. Therefore, as pointed out above it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant had availed so-called leave without prior sanction of the Management. It is also the appellant's own admission in course of cross-examination that after his dismissal from service he had been dealing in milk and curd in Sikandarabad Colony, Kotri, which business he was still doing.
' In view of above discussion I am inclined to agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, while upholding the decision of the learned Labour Judge the appeal is dismissed.