' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 11th December, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, directing the re-instatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. The allegations were that the respondent absented himself without leave from 3rd May, 1980 to 30th May, 1980, and from 1st June, 1980 to 5th June, 1980 the date of charge-sheet, and that he abused Barkat Ali, Guard on 31st May, 1980. The learned lower Court has directed the re- instatement of the respondent for the reason that enquiry was not properly held by not recording the evidence by the Enquiry Officer himself and not allowing the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. The evidence was recorded in questions-answers. Prosecution witnesses may be examined in this manner but the mode of recording the statement of the respondent in questions- answers was objectionable. As set questions were asked, the respondent did not get the opportunity to say what he wanted to say and to explain the material brought on the file in the prosecution evidence and thus he was prejudiced. This is wrong that opportunity of cross- examination was not given. He was asked to cross-examine the witnesses but he declined, as is apparent from the notes given at the end of the statements. The statement of Gul Muhammad, who is described as defence witness, was not relevant and may be ignored. The respondent stated that he did not want to examine any person in defence. In view of this statement, this is wrong to say that opportunity of defence was not given.
3. Whatever evidence was produced, the charge of absence was not established. There is no evidence so regarding absence, as no question could be put to the respondent in his statement.
However. Evidence is on the record regarding the allegation of abusing Barkat Ali, Guard. But since the statement of the respondent was not properly recorded giving him opportunity to say what he wanted to say he was, as observed above, prejudiced. So, the order of re-instatement is justified.
4. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties.
5, As a result, the appeal is without force and is dismissed.