' The decision dated 8th August, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the punishment of W. I. T. Was set aside.
2. The respondent is a Sub-Engineer-II. On 10th May, 1982 he was delivered an engine for the removal of three defects which admittedly were minor. On the charge that he failed to remove the defects and issued fitness certificate, he was awarded the above-mentioned punishment. The plea of the respondent was that it was night time and since the workshop store was closed, implements and material were not supplied enabling him to remove the defects. R. W. 1 had no personal knowledge of the facts as stated by him and made statement from the file. He did not controvert the statement of the respondent that it was night time and tools and implemenst were not available. So the offence was not proved. However, the learned lower Court has wrongly held that the inquiry was a must. Charge-sheet is a notice. It has been argued that the grievance notice was not legal as it is signed by the lawyer. The argument is misconceived. Exh. P. 1 is not the original grievance notice sent by the respondent to the appellant but is a copy. The original is with the appellant which he did not produce. The respondent may have missed to put his signatures on the office copy retained by him. Since in the written statement such an objection was not raised, he could not say that he too had signed the notice sent to the appellant. The appellant should have produced the original grievance notice received by it. Failure to produce the same raises a presumption that the grievance notice was bearing the signatures of the respondent.
3. As a result, the appeal having no force is dismissed.