Law: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)

Section: O. 15(3)(e)

(a) Industrial dispute Domestic enquiry-Representation by a representative of Union-Permission for-Whether essential. Merely because an enquiry officer does not allow a worker to be represented by a representative of the Union it does not imply that the enquiry was defective or lead to the conclusion that the rules of natural justice have been violated. 1961 P L C 714 and 1969 P L C 424 rel. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) S. O. 15(3)(e)-Habitual absence without permission-Worker remaining absent with Intervals for 13 days in four months' period and having similar record in past years-Circumstances sufficient to constitute habitual absence with out permission-Earlier charge-sheet for previous cases of absence, in circumstances, held, not necessary. 1969 P L C 1439 rel. (c) Industrial dispute Misconduct - Punishment - Charges established-Punishment to be awarded-Matter for the Management to be decided according to provisions of law and not to be interfered with by Court-West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15(2). 1966 P L C 45 rel.   ORDER The applicant Mohammad Munir had filed this application under Standing Order 18(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Com mercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, praying for his re-instatement with the respondents as Electric Welder in which capacity he was employed with them since 25-7-1962. The case of the applicant is that on 11-1-1969, he was served with a charge-sheet to which be replied. Thereafter he was directed to participate in, what he described as, a sham enquiry in which the enquiry officer's attitude was partial and the statements of witnesses not recorded properly. Also that he was not given sufficient opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses. There after he was dismissed on 23-1-1969. His case is that the punishment accorded was excessive as there are number of workers who remained absent without intimation for a long period. The reply statement of the respondent is that the applicant was a habitual absence and had been warned for several times in the…