DECISION This is an appeal against the order of Labour Court ordering re-instate--ment of the respondent.
2. The facts of the case are fully stated by the Labour Court and I need not repeat them. The respondent was a Fitter in the employment of the appellant. He had gone to Rawalpindi twice. He was said to have sent some applications for leave. On the first occasion he was allowed to resume his duties, but second time he was not allowed and his services were terminated. Aggrieved by this, he served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. The respondent appeared in the witness-boa and his cross-examination was recorded but nobody on behalf of the appellant appeared on the adjour--ned hearing. Thereafter several hearings took place but negligence was shown by the appellant by not appearing on most of the hearings and no evidence was led.
Consequently, the evidence of the respondent which remained rebutted was accepted and he was ordered to be re-instated. The dismissal was set aside on the ground that the respondent was dismissed without any show-cause notice, charge-sheet or inquiry.
3. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It was the case of the respondent that he had gone to Rawalpindi and had made applications for leave. There is nothing on record to rebut the allegations. The respondent was a permanent employee and his services could not be terminated without charge-sheet and inquiry. Thus the Labour Court was fully justified in setting aside the dismissal and ordering re-instatement,
4. In result the appeal is dismissed.