' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 29-3-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, whereby he accepted the grievance petition of Muhammad Nawaz Shah and set aside the order of his dismissal directing his reinstatement in service without back benefits. P.R.T.B. Has challenged the order of reinstatement, whereas Muhammad Nawaz Shah claims back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment, in which P.R.T.B. Will be described as the appellant and Muhammad Nawaz Shah as the respondent.
2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that the respondent who was employed as Fuel Pump Attendant in G.T.S., Sahiwal was found stealing diesel. When he was detected he ran away and absented himself. He was charge-sheeted for absence for more than ten days. The charge-sheet and the enquiry notices could be served upon him and the enquiry was made against him ex parte. The stand taken by the respondent was that he had fallen ill and had sent application for leave supported by a medical certificate. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that no grievance notice was served before bringing the grievance petition. It was also contended that the respondent did not bear good record of service and that he was caught red-handed while stealing diesel belonging to the appellant and escaped away. It was further contended that an attempt was made to serve the charge-sheet upon him but he intentionally avoided. If the charge-sheet and the enquiry notice could not be served personally, they could be served by substituted service but it was not done. The respondent has already taken the benefit of non-service of charge-sheet and enquiry notice, but this fact cannot be denied that he was avoiding service. He should have received the charge-sheet and joined the enquiry to prove that he did not absent himself intentionally, that he had applied for leave genuinely. Since he did not do so, the learned lower court was justified in disallowing back benefits to the respondent. Since neither the charge-sheet, nor the enquiry notice were legally served upon the respondent, he was condemned unheard. If the charge-sheet and the enquiry notice had been served through publication and still the respondent had not replied the charge-sheet and had not joined the enquiry, of course the order of dismissal would have been unexceptional. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent without back benefits. Both the appeals are without force and are dismissed.