' The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision, dated 30th January, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was confirmed soap-helper. He was dismissed on 1st November, 1981 on the allegation of wilful absence for more than ten days. He was granted leave from 4th August, 1981 to 3rd September, 1981. Thereafter, he did not join. He is alleged to have fallen ill and sent telegram Exh.
R-1 for extension of leave upto 19th September, 1981. Its reply by telegram Exh. R-2 was sent by the respondent informing the appellant that the leave had been rejected and calling upon him to report back for medical care. The appellant did not attend and sent another telegram Exh. R-3 requesting for extension of leave upto 25th October, 1981. He was again in reply asked vide telegram Exh. R-4 to report back for medical care. The appellant did not attend and instead sent unsigned application Exh. R-5 attaching to it photo copy of medical certificate Exh. R-6, which too does not bear his signatures. Letter Exh. R-7 was sent to him informing him about the rejection of his leave. The medical certificate sent by him was returned in original for countersignatures of Medical Officer, Incharge, District Hospital. No reply was received, so he was sent charge-sheet in registered envelope Exh. R-9 but it came back unserved with the report "not traceable". Enquiry notice was published in Nawa-i-Waqt of 20th October, 1981 for 26th October, 1981 but he did not appear. The enquiry was held ex parte and he was dismissed. The appellant denies to have received any telegram or letter from the respondent.
3. This stands proved that telegrams of the appellant for extension of leave were duly replied informing him that leave had been rejected and calling upon him to resume duty. But this does not stand proved that the medical certificate sent by the appellant with his unsigned application was sent back to him asking him to get it countersigned by the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital as neither any postal receipt nor A/D receipt was produced in evidence. Likewise, the enquiry notice, copy of which is Exh. R-13, was not proved to have been sent as no postal or A/D receipt was produced. Apart from it no date of enquiry is mentioned in the copy Exh. R-13 of the alleged enquiry notice. Even if it be taken for the sake of arguments that it was sent but such no date of enquiry was given, it was if no avail. Since the service of enquiry notice Exh. R-13 is not proved, there was no justification of making publication of the date of enquiry in the newspaper. Substituted service is allowed only when attempt to serve a letter has failed. Since the appellant had made himself available before second show-cause notice was served and dismissal order had been passed, he should have been delivered charge-sheet and after getting its reply, enquiry in his presence should have been held instead of relying upon the ex parte enquiry. The learned lower Court has thus wrongly held that proper opportunity was afforded to the appellant to show cause and to defend himself. He was wrongly dismissed and his petition was wrongly disallowed.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the dismissal order, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. This is a case of fresh enquiry but in order to save the parties from further litigation instead of permitting fresh enquiry, the appellant is not allowed back benefits.