1977 PLP 513 (PLC)

Appeal No. 1068 of 1974, decided on 12th May 1975.

Ss. 25‑A & 36‑D‑Re‑instatement‑Management failing to prepare proper record of domestic enquiry into charge of absence without leave‑Workman, held, entitled to re‑instatement in service but allowed to draw th of back benefits during period of non‑employment. Syed Rehmat Hussain Gilani with Nazeer Ahmad Naz for Appellant. Muhammad Najib for Respondent. DECISION An appeal has been brought by Sadiq Masih workman of the Khawala Bashir Ahmad and Sons, Vehari Road, Multan, against the order dated 11th April, 1974 whereby his petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re‑instatement was dismissed subject to the payment of compensation in the amount of Rs.

200. The appellant alas alleged to have remained absent from his duty from 2nd September, 1973 to 12th September, 1973. In the view of the learned Lower Court the appellant was a part time sweeper and could not claim the privilege of s permanent worker. The, learned lower Court has however omitted lot mention the reason as to why he should not be re‑instated when it is proved on record that he was properly served with first and second show' cause notices. A photostat copy of the peon book Exh. D‑D purporting to bear the thumb mark of the appellant in token of the receipt of the that show‑cause notice was put in the evidence, but it was put to the appellant during his statement. A carbon copy of the first show‑cause notice Exh. D‑H was also placed can the record but it does not bear the thumb mark of the appellant to acknowledge the receipt thereof. There is no charge‑sheet on the second show‑cause notice on the record of the domestic enquiry not to speak of the service thereof. No proper dismissal order seems to have been issued finally by Management No doubt the Management failed to prepare a proper record of domestic enquiry, whereas, the charge of absence without leave was made against the appellant. What appears from the record is that proper steps of enquiry were not taken. In such circumstances the re‑instatement of the appellant becomes necessary. However he cannot be granted full back benefits as he remained without work and was charged with absence without leave which remained unproved from non‑observance of certain procedure. According to the peculiar circumstances of the case he will be allowed to draw th of his back benefits during the period of non‑employment inclusive of the dearness allowances permissible under the law from time to time. The full amount of the back wages was calculated by the parties in the sum of Rs. 2781 th amount of which comes to Rs.

695. The appellant is directed to be re‑instated within a period of fortnight alongwith the' payment of back wages in the amount of Rs.

695. Appeal allowed.