' Lyallpur Cotton Mills has appealed against the decision dated 26-11-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The ground for which the respondent was dismissed was that he had remained absent without leave from 17-7-1980 to 31-12-1980.The respondent participated in the enquiry which was held after finding the reply to the charge-sheet as unsatisfactory. The case of the respondent is that he had been attending his duties during the disputed period but he was marked absent. Previously on two occasions he was marked absent although he had been attending his -duty and that in the enquiry his contention was found correct. Maqsood was examined at the enquiry and he stated that no duty passes of the respondent were sent to him so he marked the respondent as absent.
Duty passes are sent by the mistries concerned who were Jang Sher All and Sarfraz. Both of them had been summoned by the Enquiry Officer. They appeared one after the other but did not give any statement. Each of them said that evidence of the other man be recorded first. They were very material witnesses for both the parties and only they could say if the respondent had or had not remained absent during the disputed period and that if he had been attending his duty under which circumstances his duty passes for the relevant period were not sent to the timekeeper. This is manifest that both of them avoided to give evidence. The only inference is that they on the asking of someone withheld the duty passes and did not want to disclose the name of that person.
The contention of the respondent that he had remained present during the disputed period, therefore, appears to be correct. The evidence of Maqsood that duty passes were not sent to him was not sufficient to show that actually the respondent had remained absent. Even the evidence of Maqsood Ahmad was not properly recorded. He was examined in question and answer. So, he had to reply only to those questions which had been put to him and thus was prevented from giving the true facts. In these circumstances the learned lower court rightly directed the reinstatement of the respondent with back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.