' This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 23-10-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits from 1-1-1988.
2. The case of the appellant was closed on 8-6-1988 as evidence had not been brought. On the next date i,e, 22-6-1988 an application for additional evidence to tender some documents in evidence was moved but the same was disallowed on 22-9-1988. The case of the appellant is that the respondent is not a permanent gagman but had been employed from time to time temporarily as patroller, but by the impugned decision he has been declared as permanent and reinstated in service with back benefits accruing from 1-1-1988. If in reality the respondent is not a permanent employee, the appellant has very much suffered due to the impugned decision which has been passed without there being any evidence on the record produced by the appellant. Since the appellant maintains the service record, every relevant document is with it and only the said record could show whether the respondent was a permanent or temporary employee. At least the request for additional evidence should have been granted by the learned lower Court compensating the respondent with imposition of costs upon the appellant. If it had been done, the respondent would have been paid for the inconvenience and the appellant saved from accepting a temporary man as its permanent employee.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the case is remanded allowing the appellant to produce additional documentary evidence on the condition of payment of Rs,300 as costs to the respondent.