' This appeal arises from the decision dated 23-11-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2,Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was dismissed.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he was habitual absentee remaining absent for two days in the month of June, 1980, 13 days in the month of July, 8 days in the month of August, 18 days in the month of September, 14 days in the month of October and 14 days in the month of November.
The stand taken by the appellant was that he had been sending applications for leave and did not receive any intimation that they were not accepted. The service of charge-sheet and enquiry notice and holding of enquiry are not disputed. However, the appellant took up the plea that he was not afforded opportunity to produce his defence. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no opportunity of cross-examination was given. During the enquiry leave application, if any, were not got produced. Even before the Labour Court those leave applications were not got summoned. Learned counsel has said it was the duty of the respondent to produce the leave applications. I cannot agree with him. Since the stand taken by the appellant was that he had been sending applications and did not receive any intimation, it was his duty to call the applications to prove that in reality he had applied for leave. When the charge was for habitual absence on account of remaining absent on specific dates, the appellant could show only by calling the applications for leave to prove that he had been applying for leave.
3. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any force that no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded. The enquiry proceedings show that opportunity of cross- examination was given, but the appellant did not propose to cross-examine any witness.
' The words written are " {{URDU TEXT}} meaning that opportunity was given to cross-examine the witnesses but it was not availed off. Likewise, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel that no opportunity of the production of defence was given. On the conclusion of his statement the appellant stated that he did not want to examine any witness Learned counsel says that the Enquiry Officer wrote these words of his own accord and that the appellant did not say that he did not want to produce any witness, but he did not say so in his statement made before the lower Court. There he stated that the Enquiry Officer had asked him to produce defence evidence and granted him date for the said purpose but then he did not record the evidence. There appears to be no reason why the Enquiry Officer should not have recorded the evidence of defence witnesses, if they had been in appearance. There are many instances of absence of the appellant, which show that in reality it had become his habit to remain absent. Even otherwise, such an unpunctual employee was not fit for the service of a factory. In these circumstances, the lower court was justified in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.