DECISION ' This is an appeal by one Nisar Ahmad son of Sher Khan, a former employee of Messrs Quetta Textile Mills Ltd., S. I. T. E., Kotri, against an order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, upholding the order of the respondent Mills terminating the services of the appellant on the ground of misconduct by absenting from his duties for more than 10 days and for deserting his duties with the respondent Mills.
2. The facts giving rise to this matter are fully set out in the judgment of the Lower Court and hence, it is unnecessary to repeat them here again. It will suffice to say that the appellant on 7-4-1976, applied for a month's leave upto 7-5-1976 and in his application for leave, he gave his home address in District Poonch in Azad Kashmir which address he admitted in his cross-examination in Court to be his correct home address. He did not return to duty on 8-5-1976, but instead, from his home town, he sent two applications to the respondents for extension of his leave pleading illness but both applications were unsupported by any Medical Certificate. The respondent replied to these 2 applications for extension of leave pointing out the necessity of a medical certificate but no such certificate came from the appellant nor was he able at any time to disclose the nature of his illness. Meanwhile, the respondent Mills addressed letters to the appellant on his given home address, which letters were sent by registered post with Acknowledgement Due but these letters returned to the respondents for want of service upon the appellant. The respondents then on 17-6- 1976, addressed a charge-sheet to the appellant which was followed by a letter calling upon him to appear before the Enquiry Officer, but, as mentioned above, these envelopes, though sent by registered post with A/D returned to the respondents unserved upon the appellant. The Enquiry Officer conducted his enquiry ex parte and in the result, the respondents terminated the services of the appellant under section 15(3)(c) of the Standing Orders which order of termination of service was presented to the appellant when he showed up at the Mills on 742-1976. However, he refused to accept this order as is borne out by the signatures of 2 witnesses appearing at the bottom of this letter and indicating that the appellant refused to accept this letter of termination of service. The appellant then sent the usual Grievance Notice to which the respondent replied and then presented his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Lower Court which application was ultimately rejected and the order of termination of service upheld.
3. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Jameeluddin, Advocate on behalf of the respondents.
4. The first point urged by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi is that the charge-sheet dated 17-6-1976, is time- barred in asmuch as it is issued after the expiry of the stipulated one month. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention for the reasons that section 15(4) of the Standing Orders requires that the delinquent workman should be informed in writing of his alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct. In this case, the appellant's misconduct came into being 10 days after 8-5-1976, the day when he was to resume duty. To these 10 days must be added the period of one month so that this charge-sheet dated 17-6.1976, is in time and is not time barred.
5. Mr. Wasiullah's second contention was that since this charge-sheet was not served upon the appellant and did not reach him, its contents should have been published in some Newspapers as was held by Mr. Justice Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim in the case of Guftar Shah v. Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi and another. But in this reported case, the Workers were in Jail and so could not be served with the charge-sheets. Besides, in this reported case no notice regarding holding of enquiry was given to the workers; and no order of dismissal from service communicated to the worker employees. Thus, this reported case is distinguishable from the instant case where Notice of the date of enquiry as well as an order terminating his services were duly addressed to the appellant but were not accepted by him.
6. Mr. Wasiullah's third contention was that the show-cause notice issued to the appellant was not accompanied by a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report and the argument is that this is an illegality vitiating the proceedings. But, in answer to this contention, my attention has been drawn to the case of Muhammad Shamim v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. And another, where our Supreme Court has held that a copy of the enquiry report alongwith the show-cause notice was not necessary because it was not supported by any Standing Order. The Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, only requires that no order of dismissal shall be made unless a workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct. In this case, the appellant Nisar Ahmad was presented with an order 8 terminating his service wherein he was informed of the previous letters addressed to him at his given home address in Azad Kashmir and of the reasons for terminating his service and the specific clause mentioning the nature of his act of misconduct, as mentioned above, he refused to accept this letter in the presence of 2 witnesses who in their own handwriting have endorsed this fact thereon.
7. I have carefully examined the record of the lower Court in this case and I find that the respondents have fully complied with each and every legal requirement before terminating the services of the appellant. I also find from the cross-examination of the appellant that he admits that even previously, the Management has given him warnings on the ground of his proceeding on leave which admission would indicate that the incidents of his absence from service have not occurred for the first time during his years with the respondent Mills. Accordingly, I cannot find any substance in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 1 2