'Muscat. Wazir of - Appointment, Leave, Pay, etc, of' [‎170r] (349/546)

1
' pj
feat of exploration "by his conrinnt -i ^
y conaact is of course quite
beside the point, ether travellerft
uxd.vex±er& have performed
equally admirable feats of ex
ex^^oiation without neglectin£
the duty which thpv n- « +i •
^ UIie;y 0wfc employers -whethei
the la z Ler v .ere Govern^nt or otherwise, and there i a no
reation why Kr.Thomas should not have followed their
example,
11
me
-iLh regard to the specific question jmt for
ar itration by Kr.Hedgcoci. It certainly appears to
that sowe penalty should attach. To take analogous cases
If a Political ar Military Officer had acted as Mr.Thomas
had done the Civil or Military Authorities would
undoul tedly have shov.n spme mark of their displeasure,
and this mark would most probably have involved pecuniary
loss m pay etc to the officer concerned - if indeed it
did not take a severer form, if rr. Thomas had been
the employe or a business firm, he would most likely
have been summarily dismissed. There is no case of Mr.
Ihomas being dismissed, as he has already left the
service or the State. By the terms of his Contract he is,
however, due so many months furlough and full pay for
service under the buate up to the date he left it» Eut
in every contract there are certain implied promises,
one oi ihem being of course that an employe'' will not
taxce leave without permission, and this Mr, Thomas has
deliberately broicen under circumstances which aggravate
uhe oreach. It. would seem therefore to be for considerati
whether the Muscat State should be ice pt in full to their
side of the agreementj or whether a penalty on Mr. Thomas
of total loss of benefits accruing after termination of
his service - i.e. his period of furlough and full pay -
should not be inflicted.
12. I have not considered what actual sum is, or may
be, due to llr. Thomas. Once a decision has been given
on the above point, and on the others put for arbitration