1989 PLP 657 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑-- ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Reinstatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Workman charge‑sheeted but no enquiry held thereafter‑‑Dismissal from service on basis of preliminary enquiry conducted prior to service of charge‑sheet when workman did not know allegations against him‑‑Workman, held, was prejudiced and the case was not merely that of a technical defect‑‑Order of Labour Court disallowing back benefits, in circumstances, not approved in appeal and back benefits allowed by Appellate Tribunal M. Iqbal Khan for Appellant. Arshad Munir for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th March, 1989. Since the appeals captioned above emerge from the same decision dated 23‑1‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. Mubarik Ali (hereinafter called as the respondent) has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas the Managing Director and Zonal Manager, House Building Finance Corporation (hereinafter described as the appellants) have in their appeal challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent in service.

2. The respondent is an accounts assistant. He was dismissed from service on 22‑7‑1987 for the allegations contained in the charge‑sheet Ex.R‑

3. The allegations were that the respondent had misbehaved with Mr. Muhammad Sharif Khalid, District Manager, Sahiwal by using dirty and filthy language on being advised to attend the office in time and to prepare the statement of demand notices. The other allegation was that while Mr. Muhammad Sharif Khalid was on his way to his house he had thrown brickbats at him causing to him serious injuries on the head. In the beginning a fact‑finding inquiry was held and when evidence came against the respondent he was issued a charge‑sheet, but thereafter no regular inquiry was held and considering the reply of the respondent he was dismissed from service. Obviously the rule of natural justice and the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance were violated. An inquiry is to be held after considering the reply to the charge‑sheet. Since no inquiry was held after the respondent was charge‑sheeted, on the basis of preliminary inquiry no order of dismissal from service could be passed. The learned lower Court, therefore, was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the learned lower Court has given the reason that the respondent has succeeded on a technical ground. Failure on the part of the appellants to hold an inquiry after the respondent was charge- sheeted was not merely a technical defect. First of all the respondent was to be charge‑sheeted and if the employer was not satisfied with the reply to the charge -sheet, only then inquiry could be ordered. Since the respondent did not know what were the allegations for which inquiry was being held, he was prejudiced when he was removed from service, without any inquiry being held after he filed reply to the charge‑sheet. It was not, therefore, merely a technical defect. The respondent asserted in his statement that he right from the date of his dismissal from service was jobless and no rebuttal was produced by the appellants. So back benefits were wrongly disallowed to the respondent.

4. As a result, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed and the appeal of the respondent is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, back benefits are allowed to the respondent. A.E./657/Lb.P Back benefits allowed.