' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 11th November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, wherby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The alleged misconduct was absence for more than 10 days. The respondent did not receive the charge-sheet and the enquiry notice, but according to the appellant, he had joined the enquiry proceedings and signed them, although the respondent denies. The charge-sheet shows that the respondent had been transferred from G. T. S. Railway Road, Faisalabad to G. T. S. Sargodha, but the respondent did not join the new station and absented himself in spite of the fact that many letters under registered cover were sent to him, which he intentionally refused to receive, nor complied with the transfer order. The registered letter Exh. R. 9 purports to bear the report of the postman 'refused'. The report is dated 22nd October, 1979. The respondent appeared as his own witness and deposed that it was wrong that he absented himself from 19th August, 1979 to 23rd November, 1979.
He stated that he was ill and had been sending medical certificates. He produced copies of the medical certificates Exhs. P. 2 to P.
8. He also produced receipts Exhs. P. 9 to P.
14. He further stated that he was never charge-sheeted, nor he received any enquiry notice, nor in his presence any enquiry was held. He denied the suggestion in cross-examination that he knew about his transfer and for these reasons he gave medical certificates. He further stated that since he was admitted to the hospital, he did not know if any charge-sheet or notice had been sent to him on his home address. He denied his signatures on the enquiry proceedings and on his statement and stated that he did not appear and did not cross-examine any witness. Muhammad Yamin, A. T. M. Was examined as R. W. 1, who stated that he had made the enquiry against the respondent. In cross-examination he stated that on 13th July, 1981 the Union had got a raid made upon him and the Magistrate had recovered money from him but he was granted bail. He further stated that he did not know what happened with the case. He stated that he had informed the respondent about the enquiry, before not sending enquiry notice Exh. R. 3, whereupon the respondent had participated in the enquiry and signed the proceedings. He admitted that a demand notice had given by the C. B. A. And the dispute was pending. The postal receipts Exhs. P. 9 to P. 14 show that in reality the respondent had been sending registered letters to the appellant. His statement is that he had been sending medical certificates for his illness. This evidence has not been controverted. No witness stated that no leave application and no medical certificate was received. This is not the case of the appellant that his leave application was rejected. Even if it had been so, since no information of the rejection of the application was sent, he could not be marked absent. If the medical certificates had not been believed, the respondent should have been summoned and got examined by the medical superintendent to verify if in reality he was ill or not.
No copy of the transfer order has been pointed out from the file of the lower Court showing that in reality the respondent was transferred to Sargodha. Even if it be said that the respondent had refused to receive the letters containing the charge-sheet and enquiry notice, since he was not got examined from the doctor upon whose certificate the appellant could rely, the respondent could not be marked absent. In the enquiry report a receipt of medical certificate has been admitted, but in spite of it his leave application was not sanctioned. Manzoor Ahmad, Superintendent, deposed before the Enquiry Officer, that the respondent should have reported for duty at Sargodha and then should have applied for leave, but there is no evidence to show that the transfer order had in reality been served upon the respondent. If he was ill how he could resume duty at Sargodha and then applied for leave. If there had been some other ground for taking leave, of course it can be said that he should have first joined his duty at new station and then applied for the leave. In these circumstances, the respondent was rightly ordered to be reinstated in service without back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.