Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNAWAR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: MUNAWAR HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Case No.: Appeal No. SG-36 of 1983 Date of Judgment:1984-08-14 Reported As: 1985 PLC 321 Result: Appeal accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 8-12-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5 Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed. 2. The case of the appellant is that he remained ill from 3-4-1981 to 31-12-1981 and had been sending leave applications supported by Medical Certificate but he was dismissed. Service of charge-sheet and enquiry notice is admitted by him but he made applications for the appointment of some officers from the Headquarters Office or a Special Magistrate for holding enquiry. As his request was not acceded to, he did not join the enquiry. He was not justified in not participating in the enquiry. His request for the appointment of some Special Magistrate or some officer from the Headquarters Office was not justified. However, since he had been admittedly sending leave applications supported by medical certificate, he was wrongly disallowed leave. No doubt the witnesses in the enquiry said that the appellant was informed about the rejection of his leave but service of such a notice does not stand proved. Notices sent on 11-5-1981 and 28-6-1981 had come back undelivered as mentioned in the very charge-sheet. So they were not served. The report was that the addressee had gone out. Likewise no intimation of rejection of leave or asking the appellant to get certificate from Medical Superintendent, Sargodha was given. No such document bearing the signatures of the appellant in token of receipt of any such notice and rejection of leave or asking him to produce medical certificate from Medical Superintendent or any postal or A/D receipt to that effect is on the file. The service of transfer order too does not stand proved. The transfer order is Exh. R.1 but it does not bear the signatures of the appellant in token of receiving it. The witness in the enquiry wrongly said that the transfer order or any other intimation
---
## Page 2
of rejection of leave was served upon the appellant. The respondent and the learned lower Court, therefore, wrongly held that the appellant failed to prove the factum of his illness. The appellant was thus wrongly dismissed. However, he did not prove that during the period of dismissal he remained unemployed so he is entitled to back benefits from 3-4-1981 when he fell ill upto the date of dismissal. 3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the impugned decision of learned lower Court the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service. He is allowed back benefits from 3-4-1981 when he fell ill upto date of his dismissal but not after that.