This appeal seeks to challenge a decision given by the IVth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, on 6th May 1979, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordi--nance, 1969, impugning his dismissal from service by the respondent and seeking re- instatement in service with back benefits.
2. The appellant was dismissed from service by the respondent in consequence of a domestic enquiry in which he did not participate though a notice of the enquiry was sent to him by registered post A/D at the address given by him to his employer. The said notice and the charge- sheet were also published in a local Newspaper. The domestic enquiry was instituted against the appellant by reason of the fact that he had overstayed his leave which had expired on 30th July, 1977 and remained absent from his duties till 29th Au 1977. The case of the appellant is that he had proceeded on SICK leave from June, 1977 to 30th July, 1977, but as his health was not restored and he continued to be ill. On 3rd August, 1977, he sent an application to the respondent requesting for extension of leave from 31st July, 1977 to 25th September, 1977. This request for extension of leave was, however, refused by the respondents and the said intimation was sent to the appellant by their letter, dated 23rd July, 1977, which was followed by a telegram requiring the appellant to report for duty at once. The leave was refused on the ground that no sick leave was due to the appellant. A notice was also published in Daily 'Arran' dated 5th September, 1977, informing the appellant that the leave has been refused and he was required to attend his duty. According to 'the appellant, he neither came to know of these letters and nor he was in a position to resume his duties because he had been arrested by the Police on 15th August, 1977, and remained in custody till 29th September, 1977, and thereafter, upon his release from Jail, he reported for duty to the respondents.
3. Leave can be availed of by a workman only when it has been granted. A workman cannot remain absent from his duties merely because he has submitted a leave application, for the leave applied for may be refused either on the ground that no leave is due to the workman, as in the present case, or for other reasons, including the nature of the work in an establishment. According to paragraph (2) of Standing Order 8, a workman desiring extension of leave is required to apply in this behalf to the employer who shall send a written reply either granting or refusing the extension of leave to the workman. However, such reply is to be sent only if two conditions are present; namely (t) that the address of the workman is available and (2) that such reply is likely to reach him before the expiry of leave originally granted to the workman. In the instant case, the workman admittedly applied for extension of leave at least 3 days after the original leave had expired. As such it was not incumbent upon the employer to inform him whether the leave had been granted or refused. Nevertheless, the employer did make every effort in the instant case to inform the appellant that the extension of leave applied for by him had been refused. The employer could only send an intimation for refusal of leave at the address furnished by the workman. If the workman shifts from such address and does not give notice of the new address to the employer, the employer cannot be blamed if, the refusal of leave is not brought or does not come to the notice of the workman. It is the duty of a workman to ascertain whether the leave applied by him has been granted. In the instant case, there was no hope for extension of leave as no further leave or sick leave was due to the appellant. In any case, no effort was made by the appellant to ascertain whether the leave applied for had been granted.
4. It may also be mentioned that the appellant apparently gave false ground for extension of leave.
He had sought extension of leave on the ground that he was sick and continued to be ill till 29th Septem--ber; 1977. However, the fact that he was arrested on 15th August, 1977, and remained in custody till 29th September, 1977, together with the further fact that there is no evidence to show that he was under treat--ment in the Jail during this 'period, clearly indicates that he had given false and bogus grounds for extension of leave. It also appears from the impugned order that the appellant himself at one stage had taken the plea before the employer that he had gone to Swat where he had fallen ill and offered to produce a Medical Certificate. This shows that at different times the appellant had been taking different pleas in regard to his absence.
5. I find that the absence of the appellant for a period beyond 10 days was unauthorised and cannot be considered to be on account of the reason beyond the appellant's control. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly dismiss this appeal in limine.