' In this appeal the decision dated 31st October, 1981, passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement.
2. The facts are that the appellant was on Rest and Recreation leave from 14th March, 1980 to 27th March, 1980. On the expiry of that leave instead of reporting for duty, he applied for leave making application Exh. R. 14 from 18th March, 1980 to 27th March, 1980 supporting the application with medical certificate Exh. R.
13. He made other applications Exh. R. 11 to Exh. R. 14 for leave covering the period up to 14th June, 1980. He reported for duty on 15th June 1980. Bringing a fitness certificate Exh. R.
25. He was delivered charge-sheet Exh. P. 1 on 21st June, 1980 to which he gave reply Exh. P.
2. The case of the appellant is that even though he had made several applications which were supported by medical certificates yet no intimation about the acceptance or the rejection of the leave applications was conveyed to him. The case of the respondent is that intimation Exh. R. 3 was sent to the appellant to the effect that he was absent. Muhammad Saleem Depot Supervisor appeared before the enquiry officer and stated that notice of absence was sent to the appellant but he did not say that whether the said notice was sent by hand or by post or whether through registered A. D. If the notice Exh. R. 3 was sent through a messenger then the said messenger was not examined to prove the service. If it was sent by registered post, then production of postal receipt was necessary but no receipt is on the record. Again through this notice the appellant was not informed that his leave application had not been sanctioned. Thereafter another application was sent by the appellant for leave but no reply came nor any other notice of absence was served upon him. In these circumstances, the appellant was justified in thinking that his leave had been sanctioned. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the certificates were not of the Board's Doctor, therefore, the certificates were not believed. If the certificates were not believed, the appellant should have been asked to appear before the Board's Doctor and to produce the medical certificate from him or to get the medical certificates already sent by him countersigned by the Board's Doctor but it was not done. Since service of Exh. R. 3 also does not stand proved it cannot be said that the appellant had come to know that his leave applications had not been sanctioned. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the appellant was entitled to be given free medical aid, he should have get himself cured from the Board's Doctor and since he did not do so, the respondent was justified in not believing the certificates. Taking of certificate is another thing but consulting a doctor for treatment is concerned, the appellant was free to consult any doctor at home he had confidence. He could not be forced to get himself treated by a particular doctor. However, counter-signatures of the Board's Doctor may be necessary but since no intimation was sent to the appellant, therefore, he could not do so. Since the appellant did not absent himself without sending leave applications and medical certificates, he should have been re-instated. Those cases are differentiable whether leave is without any application. But as a result, the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the order of dismissal and the order of the learned trial Judge, direct the re- instatement of the appellant. However as the appellant did not care to get the countersignatures of the Board's Doctor, he is not entitled to back benefits.