' This appeal arises from the decision dated 18th September, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The respondent was Sub-Engineer. He went on leave from 1st June, 1977 to 1st July, 1978 but he could not resume duty till. 3rd July, 1978. On 27th July, 1978 he met with an accident and was hospitalised. He reported back on duty on 2nd February, 1982 but was informed that he had been removed from service on account of absence.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned lower Court did not give the appellant opportunity to produce evidence, therefore, no material could be brought on the record to show that the misconduct committed by the respondent was proved. This is wrong that opportunity was not given. On 14th February, i982 the respondent completed his evidence and the case was adjourned to 10th March, 1982 for the evidence of the appellant. No evidence was produced by the appellant on the said date, therefore, the case was further adjourned to 10th April, 1982 for the same purpose, but since on the said date also no evidence was brought, the case of the appellant was closed. It is thus clear that the case of the appellant was not closed on the first date but he was given two opportunities which were not availed of.
4. No charge-sheet and no enquiry notice was served upon the respondent. The letter was sent to the respondent on the address given in his leave application but it was received back with the report that the number of the property given was of an open plot and not a constructed house.
Thereafter, no charge-sheet was sent to the respondent at his home address. Needless to say that a person seeking employment gives his permanent address in his application. Thus the employer has the permanent address of every employee on the service record. The appellant, therefore, should have after the first letter had been received unserved sent the charge-sheet at the home address of the respondent. Since it was not done, it cannot be said that the charge-sheet was served upon the respondent.
5. In these circumstances, the respondent was rightly directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.