| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 1520 1985 SLD 1520 1985 PLC 62 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-785 of 1981, decided on 28th February, 1982.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. LHR-785 of 1981, decided on 28th February, 1982.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
BASHIR AHMAD
VS
The PERSONNEL MANAGER, PACKAGES LIMITED, LAHORE
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI oaf 1968)---- ---S.O. 15--Appellant dismissed from service on charge of habitual absence--Plea of not having been afforded opportunity to produce defence and cross-examine witnesses, not established--Many specific instances of absence--Such unpunctual employee not fit for service of factory-Order of dismissal, upheld in circumstances. Kh. Tariq Masood for Appellant. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1982. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the decision dated 23-11-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2 Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed. 2. The charge against the appellant was that he was habitual absentee remaining absent for two days in the month of June, 1980, 13 days in the month of July, 8 days in the month of August, 18 days in the month of September, 14 days in the month of October and 14 days in the month of November. The stand taken by the appellant was that he had been sending applications for leave and did not receive any intimation that they were not accepted. The service of charge-sheet and enquiry notice and holding of enquiry are not disputed. However, the appellant took up the plea that he was not afforded opportunity to produce his defence. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no opportunity of cross-examination was given. During the enquiry leave application, if any, were not got produced. Even before the Labour Court those leave applications were not got summoned. Learned counsel has said it was the duty of the respondent to produce the leave applications. I cannot agree with him. Since the stand taken by the appellant was that he had been sending applications and did not receive any intimation, it was his duty to call the applications to prove that in reality he had applied for leave. When the charge was for habitual absence on account of remaining absent on specific dates, the appellant…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492