Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- --Ss. 25-A & 38 (3), West Pakistan industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 15 (3)­Misconduct--Habitual absence-Concept of habit involves nature and behaviour of workman and certain instances are to be proved from which habit may be spelt out-Accused remaining once absent for about 2 months but his apology on good grounds accepted--­Remaining again absent for 2 days only-Dismissed on charge of habitual absence-Charge of habitual absence, in circumstances, held, not established and mere absence for 2 days did not amount to misconduct-Dismissal order, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal awarding reinstatement with back benefits. 1984 P L C: 1471 ref. Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant. Abdul Ghani Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing : 22nd April, 1985. DECISION This appeal is against the order of Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, dated 28th August, 1984. The Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, filed under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969. 2: The facts which relate to the instant appeal are that the appellant was working as Electrician with the respondents, Noor Textile Mills at Kotri. Once he remained absent from 11th August, 1982 to 2nd October, 1982, but he was excused. Then, on 16th and 17th December, 1982, he again absented from duty without any intimation so he was charge-sheeted on 18th December, 1982. Finally after holding enquiry he was dismissed from service by order, dated 18th January, 1983. He consequently filed the grievance petition. 3. I have read the impugned order and have beard both the learned counsel. The only point involved in this matter is whether the appellant by…

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