1983 PLP 522 (PLC)

This appeal arises from the decision dated 16th December, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1., Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent applied for extension of leave on the ground of illness from 31st December, 1979 to 20th January, 1980. He had obtained medical certificate from Dr. Azmat, recognised by the appellant. A note was given by hint which read as ":advised by the Mayo Hospital". A chit purporting to have been issued by Dr. Farooq of Mayo Hospital was attached with the certificate. The District Manager sent the said chit to Mayo Hospital for verification but reply was received that the signatures of Dr. Farooq were fictitious. Thereupon, the respondent was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal.

3. The learned lower Court has held that it was the duty of the Enquiry Officer to examine Dr. Azmat as the stand taken by the respondent was that the medical certificate and the chit of Mayo Hospital had been delivered to him by Dr. Azmat and that the allegation did not amount to misconduct as no fraud causing damage to the property or business of the employer had been committed.

4. I do not agree with the learned lower Court. The stand taken by the respondent was to be proved by him and not by the prosecution. More over. the Enquiry Officer was not the prosecutor or the defence representa tive to call a witness. for the summoning of which no request had been made by the parties. If the respondent had requested for the summoning of Dr. Azmat, of course, the Enquiry Officer would have procured his presence. The very stand taken by the respondent is ex facie not probable. Why Dr. Azmat should have arranged for a fictitious chit from Mayo Hospital. If he was inclined to issue a certificate, there was no hindrance in his way, while on the other hand it is possible that the respondent may have provided a fictitious chit of Mayo Hospital, so on its basis Dr. Azmat may issue the certificate. Needless to say that Dr. Azmat was the recognised prac titioner by the P R T B authorities to examine the employees of P R T B and issue the certificates.

5. Production of fictitious certificate in order to get leave falsely on the ground of illness does affect the business of the employer. Medical leave is allowed on full average pay. The employer either has to keep the post vacant and suffer in business bya not to take duty from any one in those days or to engage another person and pay him wages besides giving pay to the original employee who goes on leave. So the employer does more or less suffer in business. The respondent provided a fictitious certificate and thus misconduct was established and the was rightly dismissed.

6. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision, dismiss the grievance petition of respondent and restore the order of dismissal passed against him by the appellant. Appeal accepted.