' This appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 28th March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had absented himself without leave from 27th July, 1979 to 15th August, 1979. The learned lower Court reinstated the respondent for the reason that clargesheet was not served which is alleged to have been sent by the appellant to the respondent by registered post, but it came back with the report that the addressee was not available on the given address. Where such a report has been received and it is found that the letter was sent on the address supplied by the employee concerned to the employer, the employer is absolved of the responsibility of sending the charge-sheet again unless another address given by the employee is available. In the present case it was not proved that actually the charge-sheet was sent to the respondent and it had been received back with the report that he was not available on the given address. The envelop in which the charge-sheet is alleged to have been sent is not on the record. In the absence of that envelop neither it can be said that actually the letter was sent, nor that it was received back with any report. The postman was not examined to state that he had taken the letter on the given address and that the respondent was not available.
The other defect is that in the charge-sheet it was mentioned that the Enquiry Officer had been appointed, whereas enquiry can be held only after finding the reply to the charge-sheet as unsatisfactory. It appears that before issuing charge-sheet it was believed that a prima facie case had been made out. The learned lower Court was in these circumstances justified to reinstate the respondent. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.