Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ZARAAT VS Respondent: CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: MUHAMMAD ZARAAT vs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD Case No.: Appeal No. FD-452 of 1984 Date of Judgment:1984-12-10 Reported As: 1986 PLC 481 Result: Appeal accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT The decision, dated 24-6-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. 2. The allegations for which the appellant was dismissed from service are that he was a habitual absentee for remaining absent on 1st, 2nd 5th & 6th October, 1982 and for 36 days from 16-10-1981 to 30-9-1982. So far as absence for 36 days is concerned, the charge-sheet is vague, inasmuch as the dates are not given. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the appellant admitted the absence, he was not adversely affected by the vagueness of the show- cause notice. The argument has no force. First show-cause notice is the foundation of the disciplinary proceedings. If dates had been given; the appellant may have pleaded that on some of those dates he was either not absent or- that he had applied for leave. If the total 'period had fallen short, he could not have been found as a habitual absentee. So far as the absence of 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th October, 1982 are concerned, their numbers being short, they do not show that remaining absent had become the habit of the appellant. The appellant was, therefore, wrongly dismissed from service and his grievance petition wrongly disallowed. 3. As a result, that appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the dismissal order of the appellant, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. He is, however, not entitled to back benefits as he has succeeded on a technical ground and did not state that he remained unemployed after his dismissal.