' This is an appeal from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, dated 25th of August, 1993, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant is an employee of the respondents as Helper at the Washing Lines, Railway Station, Lahore. He proceeded on leave for 115 days from 5th of October, 1984 to 27th of January, 1985. His case was that when after the expiry of the leave he reported for duty on 28th of January, 1985, he was .Not allowed to resume duty and the respondents procrastinate in the matter. He was, therefore, constrained to file a grievance petition. During the pendency of his grievance petition, the respondents allowed him to resume duty on 14th of May, 1987. On 16th of May, 1987, therefore, he withdrew his grievance petition with permission to file a fresh grievance petition in case be did not feel satisfied with the order of the respondents with regard to the payment of his dues from 28th of January, 1985 to 14th of May, 1987. Subsequently, his efforts for payment of wages for the above period proved in vain as the respondents treated the period as leave without pay. He, therefore, after service of grievance notice, filed a grievance petition claiming wages for the period from 28th of January, 1985 to 13th of May, 1987. His plea was that withholding of his dues for the above period violated his rights guaranteed under the law, inasmuch as hp was forcibly kept out of job despite his effort to perform his duties.
3. The respondents contested the grievance petition. It was pleaded that the appellant failed to resume duty on the expiry of his leave in spite of notices issued to him.
4. The appellant in support of his grievance petition examined himself as P.W.1. No oral 'evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents in his statement tendered seventeen documents and closed the evidence of the respondents. The learned Labour Court observing that the appellant had failed to prove that he was entitled to wages for the period from 28th of January, 1985 to 13th of May, 1987, dismissed his grievance petition. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant alleged that on the expiry of his leave he approached the respondents for the resumption of his duty but it was not allowed and, therefore, he was not culpable for his absence from 28th of January, 1985 till 14th of May, 1987 when he was allowed to resume duty. He supported this allegation in his statement as PW.1. He denied in his cross-examination that he intentionally absented himself from duty. The respondents pleaded that in spite of notices, the appellant failed to resume duty. However, no oral evidence was led to substantiate this plea. Merely documents were tendered in evidence by learned courisel for the respondents in his statement. Oral evidence was necessary to corroborate these documents. Somebody should have appeared in the witness-box to prove the issuance of notices and steps taken to ensure service thereof on the appellant. In the absence of any such evidence, the testimony of the appellant could not be disbelieved. I, therefore, hold that the absence of the appellant from 28th of January, 1985 to 13th of May, 1987 was not due to any fault on his part but it occurred on account of inaction on the part of the respondents. In this view of the matter, the appellant was entitled to wages for the period in question.
6. In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the impugned decision and accepting the grievance petition filed by the appellant, direct the respondents to pay him wages for the period from 28th of January, 1985 to 13th of May, 1987.