1986 PLP 275 (PLC)

Ch. Khalid Farooq for Appellant. Muhammad lqbal Khokhar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th August, 1985. The decision, dated 18‑7‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant for which he was dismissed from service was of absence without leave from 2‑4‑1983 to 31‑8‑1983. The plea of the appellant is that he fell ill and was admitted to hospital and had been sending applications and medical certificates for leave but did not receive any intimation of the rejection of leave. He contended that he did not receive any charge‑sheet, inquiry notice or second show‑cause notice. As a matter of fact the abovementioned documents except the charge‑sheet were sent by the respondent to the appellant but they were delivered back with the reports that without street and house numbers service. was not possible. According to the respondent, since the appellant had not furnished the street and house numbers the letters were sent on the address available with the respondent. The appellant said that in his service book his house number was given as E‑762 but he admitted that originally he had furnished his address to the respondent as Chungi Amir Sidhu, Lahore and that the same was mentioned in his service book. This is noteworthy that the appellant did not say that the address originally given by him which was entered in his service book contained house and street numbers. The respondent, therefore, was not in a position to give further details in the letters. I do riot find any force in this argument that the letters should have been got published in the newspaper after they had been received back unnerved Since on the address provided by the appellant the notices were sent, it was sufficient compliance with the requirement of law. So, the learned lower Court is justified in holding that the inquiry notice and second show‑cause notice were duly served. However this does not stand established that the charge sheet was sent. None of the envelopes that were received back contains charge‑sheet.

3. So far as leave applications and medical certificates are concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that they were proved to have been served. The appellant was required to apply for leave to the employer. The statement of R.W.‑1, therefore, is not sufficient to show that the letters sent by the appellant were not received. The employee of the office of the District Manager who receives the dak should have been examined by the respondent. As no charge‑sheet was proved to have been sent to the appellant, the dismissal order is not maintainable.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant i5 directed to be re instated in service. As the appellant did not assert that he remained jobless after he was dismissed, lie is not entitled to back benefits. A.E. Appeal accepted.