' The decision dated 22-10-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegation for which the respondent was declared to have ceased to remain in service was that he had remained absent without leave for more than five years. The case of the respondent before the learned lower Court was that on 30-8-1983 he had reported for duty but he was not given duty. Copy of duty report dated 30-8-1983 is Exh. P.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no receipt was produced to prove that actually the duty report Exh. P.1 was delivered.
The respondent in his statement deposed that he had reported for duty on 30-8-1983 and that copy of the report was Exh. P.1. No evidence oral or documentary was produced to rebut the statement of the respondent. The appellant in order to rebut the evidence of the respondent could have produced receipt register to show that no such report, copy of which is Exh. P.1, was entered in the said register. The respondent thus proved that he on 30-8-1983 had reported for duty but duty was not given to him. Since before the expiry of five years he had reported for duty, it cannot be said that he had remained absent without leave for more than five years. In these circumstances, it was necessary to charge-sheet the respondent and to prove his absence by holding an inquiry before removing him from service.
3. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance notice was time-barred. The order by which the respondent was declared to have ceased to remain in service is dated 2-1-1984 but there is no evidence that the said order was conveyed to the respondent on such a date that thenceforward the grievance notice was time-barred. The case of the respondent is that he had filed a departmental appeal and produced its copy which is Exh. P.3. It is dated 16-1- 1984. On this point also the respondent stated on oath but since no evidence was produced on the point by the appellant, the statement of the respondent remained unrequited. The grievance notice is dated 2-9-1986. Since either the departmental appeal has not yet been decided or if decided, the decision was not conveyed to the respondent, the stand taken by the appellant that the grievance notice was time-barred is wrong. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that since in the grievance notice it was not urged by the respondent that he had preferred a departmental appeal and that its result had not been communicated, therefore, the grievance notice was time-barred. It was not necessary to make such an assertion in the grievance notice. The learned lower Court thus rightly found that the grievance notice was within time and thus rightly vacated the order dated 2-1-1984 and directed the reinstatement of the respondent in service.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.