' This appeal arises from the decision dated 17th September, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he remained absent without leave from 11th March, 1980 to 8th March, 1981. Absence notice Exh. R-1 was issued to him on his home address by post asking him to resume duty within seven days but the notice came back with the report that he had left residence. Charge-sheet Exh. R-5 was sent but it was received back with the report "Not known"
( --). He was dismissed from service. He challenged the order of dismissal in a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, l%9. In his statement made before the learned lower court he admitted that he had not applied for leave. He said that he left his house and came to Lahore as his parents wanted to marry him and at Lahore he fell ill.
3. Absence notice and charge-sheet were issued on the address of the appellant which he had at the time of joining service supplied to the respondent. Before becoming and during absence he did not give his Lahore address, so the respondent was not called for to send the charge-sheet and enquiry notice at any other address. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the charge-sheet should have been published in the newspaper. This is not the requirement of law.
Learned counsel has also argued that ex parte enquiry should have been made before recording the order of dismissal. This argument is not tenable. Enquiry is made to prove the misconduct and to give opportunity to the defaulter to defend himself. Since no leave application or medical certificate had been received, the factum of absence without leave was manifest. Since the absence notice and charge-sheet had been received back unserved it was not possible to give opportunity to the appellant to defend himself .In the circumstances of the case, no more could be done than that what actually was done by the respondent. In his statement made before the learned lower court, he said that he had gone mentally infirm therefore, could not inform the respond not about his absence and its cause. This statement does not stand supported by any medical certificate of some mental expert. So what he had said is quite untrue and does not inspire confidence. He was, therefore, rightly refused to reinstate by the learned lower court.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.