1984 PLP 1521 (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. MN‑243 of 1982, decided on 21st April, 1982. ‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Workman ‑Reinstatement‑Workman not served with charge‑sheet and other correspondence on correct address to enable him to appear and join enquiry‑Such enquiry, held, illegal‑Ex parte order of dismissal of workman, held further, not maintainable and, therefore, set aside‑Workman reinstated. Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 20th April, 1982. In this appeal decision, dated 28th of February, 1982 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstate ment in service was accepted and he was reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. The charge against the respondent was of absence without leave for more than 10 days. He had obtained leave for two months upto 3rd May, 1978. He applied for extension of leave for further two months upto 3rd July, 1978 but received no information. According to the case of the appellant leave upto 29th of May, 1978 had been sanctioned but he did not report for duty from 30th of May, 1978 and was absent without leave. Show‑cause notice was issued on 16th November, 1978 and he was dismissed from service on 14th October, 1979. The charge‑sheet was issued not on the address which the respondent had left with the appellant and which was present at his service record. The charge‑sheet and other correspondence were issued to the respondent c/o Zamindar Boot House, Kote Addu. Abdul Ghafoor, Head Clerk, examined on behalf of the appellant as R. W. I stated in cross‑examination that at the service book the said address was not given but the address of Railway Quarter was given. It is thus apparen that since the charge‑sheet and other correspondence were not sent to the respondent on the correct address he could not appear and join the enquiry. All the proceedings made by the appellant against the respondent, therefore, were illegal. The respondent made application to the D. M. E. as is evident from photostat copy Exh. P‑7 and he passed an order that the respondent may be reinstated. If it was recommendation, no order of reinstatement thereon was passed and if it was the order of reinstatement, it was not implemented. The respondent, therefore, made grievance petition to the learned lower Court. The order of dismissal is not maintainable and was rightly struck down by the learned lower Court firstly because illegal ex parte proceedings were made against the respondent and secondly even though the E. N. C. passed an order of reinstatement in favour of the respondent he was not put back on duty. In view of what has been observed above the order of the learned Lower Court reinstating the respondent without back benefits is unexceptionable. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.