' In this appeal the decision, dated 12th May, 1979 passed by the earned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and be was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was a fitter in the Body Building Work shop an on the charge of absence from 4th July, 1978 upto the date of charge-sheet 12th October, 1978 his services were terminated. Notices to issue -duty are alleged to have been issued to him on his address on 15th July, 1978, 30th July, 1978 and 15th August, 1978 but without any response. The charge-sheet, copy of which is Exh. D-4, is alleged to have been se to the respondent on his address by registered post, but no post.. Receipt was brought on the file in token the fact that the charge-sheet had actually been despatched by registered post. Gulzar Ahmed (DW-1 no doubt said that charge-sheet Exh. D-4 was sent under registered cove but he had not deposed that he had himself gone to the post office any sent the notice under registered cover. In the absence of a postal receipt it cannot be said that the charge- sheet was actually despatched. The counsel for the respondent put particular questions to the witness wit' regard to the postal receipt and he answered that such postal receipts arissued but added that they are with the time-keeper and not with him The other question put to him was whether letters were sent to the respondent with A/D receipt, and the answer was in the affirmed and the witness added that in none of the letters any A/D receipt was received back. So the service of charge-sheet does not stand proved.. There is no evidence, if any enquiry notice was sent to the responder No copy of the enquiry notice is on the record, nor the solitary witness DW-1 stated that any such enquiry notice was sent, This is another defect for which the order of reinstatement appears to be justified In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was right in ordering t reinstatement of the respondent in service with back benefits. There I no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.
THE END