' This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 5-4-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The facts are that the appellant, who was a peon in the respondent bank, applied for four days leave with effect from 4-1-1983 and thereafter proceeded to Saudi Arabia for Umrah and had been sending applications for leave from there. The appellant reported for duty on 1-12-1984 but duty was given to him on 14-1-1985. However, there is no duty report dated 1-12-1984 on the record. The appellant was charge-sheeted and after holding an inquiry was dismissed from service.
3. The case of the respondent is that the appellant was duly informed by letter, copy of which is Exh.
R-3, about the rejection of his leave application but in spite of it he did not join duty and thus was rightly treated as absent. It has not been proved that the letter, copy of which is Exh. R-3, was actually dispatched. No postal receipt is on the record. Even no oral evidence was led to show that the said letter was actually dispatched. The inquiry was not properly held, inasmuch as the respondent was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses examined against him. Rather during the examination of prosecution witnesses the respondent was put certain questions. His statement was recorded in question answer form which means that he was not afforded opportunity to explain his absence. During the examination of prosecution witnesses the appellant was inquired whether he wanted to produce any witness or documentary evidence but after the close of the prosecution case no such question was put to him nor any opportunity was afforded to him to produce defence. The appellant could decide to produce or not to produce defense after the close of the prosecution evidence and not before that. So the argument of the learned representative of the appellant is correct that even no opportunity to produce defense was afforded to the appellant. The learned lower Court has not gone into the inquiry proceedings. And thus its finding is wrong that proper opportunity was afforded to the appellant. The petition, therefore, was wrongly dismissed.
4. So far as back benefits are concerned, the learned representative of the appellant has during arguments urged that if the appeal is accepted, and the appellant is reinstated in service, he would not press for back benefits.
5. As upshot of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of dismissal of the appellant, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.