This appeal is directed against the decision dated 23-9-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant had absented himself from 10-1-1978 and had been applying for leave till 9-4-1978.
The medical certificates were not of the Banks doctor but of a private practitioner. The appellant was asked vide letter dated 22-1-1978 to get himself examined by the Bank's doctor, but he did not comply .With it. On receipt of his second application for extension of leave till 9-4-1978 he was again asked to get himself examined by the Bank's doctor but he did not do so. The leave applied - for was, therefore, rejected. In the evidence. .It was not shown what prevented the appellant from getting himself examined by the Banks doctor when repeatedly he Was asked to do so. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel that there is no rule that only from the Bank's doctor medical certificate for leave .Be obtained. This is the satisfaction of the employer. In view of the experience that false medical certificates are usually issued by some doctors, the respondent was justified in insisting that the Bank's doctor, be consulted. Moreover: the certificates do no bear the outdoor patient register number, which shows that no treatment was taken from the doctor from whom certificates were-- obtained: The doctors attend a large number of patients daily. They,, therefore,. Are-not expected to remember. The patients, their diseases and the- medicines prescribed for them. Invariably the name of the patient is entered in the outdoor patient register alongwith the disease and the medicines prescri--bed for him for further reference. And when a certificate is issued, the number of the patients register is given on it. Of course if only certificate is to be issued and no treatment is to be given, there is no need of making entry of the patient in the patients register. It is therefore, doubtful if the appellant really fell ill. The case of the respondent was that no leave was due but in spite of it, the certificate of bank's doctor was demanded to consider the applications for leave. In the circumstances discussed above the petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed.
3. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.