1988 PLP 463 (PLC(CS))

Bashir Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1987. This is an appeal against an impugned order, dated 7‑7‑1981 passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits, under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be an employee of the appellant mills as a Driver and on 21‑2‑1984, he was issued a charge‑sheet on a complaint made by his co‑driver, namely, Manzoor Mustafa Shah that he had committed a fraud in regard to one Slip issued by the Chief Executive for the supply of 13 litres of petrol. He further claimed that though he submitted a satisfactory reply to this charge‑sheet, yet, a so‑called enquiry was conducted against him and subsequently, on 1‑2‑1984, he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the respondent claimed that after a proper grievance notice, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court. Further, the claim of the respondent is that in fact he did not utilize the said Slip for petrol as it had fallen in a nearby canal, therefore, he neither committed any fraud nor any misappropriation and that due to personal enmity with his co‑driver, namely, Manzoor Mustafa Shah he was victimized.

3. The appellant mills resisted the petition and that as per their contentions the respondent was properly and lawfully dismissed from service and thus, was not entitled to maintain his petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duty cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Basheer Awan the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. The respondent, Sher Muhammad was also present before me Instead of submitting their respective contentions in support of their cases, both the parties have arrived at a compromise that the appellant mills is prepared to take the respondent in their services but, with 50$ back benefits. The respondent who is present in Court has given his consent to this offer of the appellant mills. 1, therefore, in view of this settlement between the parties, would order that the impugned order be maintained but only with a modification that he be paid 50$ (fifty per cent) back benefits, already deposited in this Tribunal by the appellant mills be returned to them forthwith.

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, A. E./1081/Lb.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Orders accordingly.