DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned First Labour Court, given on 20-5-1982, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition challenging his dismissal from service.
2. The appellant, who was employed as a bus driver in the respondent corporation, applied for twenty-six days leave for going to his native place in Azad Kashmir where his were was seriously ill.
In his application for leave the appellant voluntarily gave an undertaking that he will neither request extension for leave nor would he extend his leave. The leave requested by the appellant was granted to him and he availed the said leave. How--ever, on the expiry of the said leave and in disregard of his undertaking not to have his leave extended the appellant sent an application, dated 18-6-1981, to the respondent corporation, requesting for extension leave, the period whereof was not specified on the ground that he had fallen ill and was taking treatment in a hospital, certificate from where would be produced by him at the time of resuming his duties. The management, in reply, to the appellant, directed him to report for duty at once with a further advice that in case he was really sick he should submit a certificate, in advance, from the Medical Superintendent of his District. It appears that the appellant neither sent the requisite Medical Certificate to the respondent corporation nor applied for extension of leave. Accordingly a charge- sheet, dated 15-7-1981, was sent to the appellant, at his home address, by registered post. As no reply to this charge-sheet was submitted by the appellant it was followed by notice of enquiry, to be held on 5-8-1981. This notice was also sent to the appellant at his home address by registered post. As the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry officer on the appointed date, the enquiry was held ex parte on 5-8-1981 and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the appellant was ordered to be dismissed from service. The dismissal order, dated 9-8-1981, was sent to the appellant at his home address by registered post. It is the case of the appellant that he did not receive the charge-sheet, notice of enquiry or the dismissal order. According to the appellant he returned to Karachi in about the end of October, 1981, and submitted a Medical Certifi--cate from Dr. M. Shabbir Kiyani, Medical Specialist of Rawala Kot Hospital, indicating that the appellant was under his treatment from 20-6-1981 to 14-10-1981. The respondent corporation, however, refused to take back the appellant in service on the ground that he had . Been dismissed from service vide order dated 9-8-1981. The appellant thereupon preferred a grievance petition before the learned First Labour Court which has been dismissed on the ground that the dismissal orders are valid and suffer from no infirmity.
3. I have heard Mr. Yousuf Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant. His main contention was that the appellant was dismissed from service without holding a domestic enquiry. The contention has no force. The enquiry proceedings have been produced and they are at pages 63 to 73 on the record of the learned Labour Court. They include, apart from the statements of witnesses, copies of the charge-sheet and notice of the holding of enquiry.
4. It was further contended by Mr. Yousuf Khan that the appellant had no notice of the enquiry. As already pointed out, the charge-sheet, the notice of the holding of the enquiry and the dismissal order were sent to the appellant at his home address in Azad Kashmir by registered post. These documents were sent to him at the same address on which the letter, dated 18-6-1981, was sent by the respondent corporation to the appellant requiring him to obtain a Medical Certificate from the Medical Superin--tendent of his District. Admittedly the appellant received this letter. A presumption, therefore, arises that the charge-sheet, notice of enquiry and the dismissal orders, which were sent to the appellant on the same address by registered post, must have reached him.
If the appellant had shifted from the address at which the letter, dated 18-6-1981, was sent to him he alone is to blame, since he admittedly did not intimate any fresh address to 'the respondent corporation.
5. The only other point which remains to be considered is whether the appellant was unable to attend to his duties from 19-6-1981 to about early November 1981, on account of his sickness at his native place. Mr. Mohammad Yousuf, the learned counsel for the appellant has strongly relied upon the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Shabbir Kiyani, certifying that the appellant was under his treatment from 26-6-1981 to 20-10-1981 and that he had been advised further rest for one week after the latter date. I find it difficult to rely on the Certificate. In the first place the registration No. Of the doctor who has given the certificate has not been stated in the certificate though the certificate is on a printed form. More important, whereas according to the medical certificate the appellant was suffering from viral hepatitis, the appellant in his evidence before the learned Labour Court has stated that he had trouble in his eyes. According to Dorland s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, `hepatitis' means inflammation of the liver while viral hepatitis or infectitious hepatitis means :- "acute viral illness of the liver of world were most commonly in children and young adults. It is usually trans--mitted by oral ingestion of infected transmitted by blood transfusion."
It, thus appears that the medical certificate I has no relevance whatsoever to the ailment from evidence given by the appellant ' " suffering at his native place.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to prove that his absence from 19-6-1981 upto the date of his dismissal was due to circumstances beyond his control. I, accor--dingly, find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.