1984 PLP 445 (PLC)

Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Asghar for Respondent. Date of hearing : 20th February, 1984. The titled appeal emerges from the decision, dated 30th April, 1983 reported by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. The respondent has brought cross‑objections for claiming back benefits. This judgment will dispose of the appeal and the cross‑objections together.

2. The respondent was dismissed from service on the allegation of absence for more than ten days. The plea of the respondent was that he had fallen ill and had been sending applications for leave duly supported by medical certificates. The copies of the applications are Exhs. P. 2 to P. 5 and photostat copies of the medical certificates are Exhs. P. 6 to P.

8. The certificates were obtained from a private doctor Mr. Riaz H. Naik. The appellant sent back the same to the respondent for getting them countersigned by the bank Medical Officer Exhs. P. 6 and P. 7 bear the countersignatures. The respondent stated on oath before the learned lower Court that he had sent the medical certificates Exhs. P. 6 to P. 8 after getting them countersigned. This evidence was not rebutted. Exhs. P‑6 and P‑7 actually bear the countersignatures. The respondent got the medical certificates countersigned in compliance with the direction so this is believable that they were sent to the appellant. So, the unrebut ted statement of the respondent was rightly accepted by the learned lower Court. The medical certificate Exh. P. 8, no doubt, does not bear the countersignatures of the Bank's doctor but since Exhs. P. 6 and P. 7 and the Mayo Hospital prescription show that the respondent in reality remain ed suffering from Sciatica, it is believable that it continued 1st February, 1981 to 31st March, 1981. His absence was, therefore, not wilful. However, the respondent failed to establish that he had applied to the enquiry officer for adjournment. His statement and the statement of his brother stood controverted by the evidence of the enquiry officer who said that no appli cation for adjournment was made to him. The enquiry officer was thus justified in holding the enquiry ex parte.

3. Since it is established that the respondent's absence was not wilful be was rightly directed to be re‑instated in service. However, as be failed to request for the adjournment of the enquiry, be has been rightly dis allowed back benefits.

4. As a result, the appeal and the cross‑objections are dismissed. A. E. Appeal and cross‑objection accepted.