' In the instant appeal, respondents were tried to be served through normal process, registered envelopes A.D and citation in newspaper on 29-11-2004 in Daily Naya Dasr of Multan, but nobody had entered appearance on behalf of respondents, resultantly the respondents were proceeded against ex parte.
2. Compendious facts as stated by learned counsel and found from the record are that Muhammad Arif, the appellant who was employed as Accounts Assistant in Ciba Giegy, (Pakistan)
Limited, at Khanewal, was charge-sheeted and, consequently dismissed from this service vide order dated 6-12-1999. Aggrieved from that order, the appellant Muhammad Arif served a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial A Relations Ordinance 1969 but no remedial step was taken. So he filed a grievance petition before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, which was registered at serial No,69 of 2000. The petition was contested by the respondent but the learned Presiding Officer of the aforesaid Court accepted the petition and directed the reinstatement of the appellant, with 25 % back-benefits. This order was announced on 3-10-2001 by the aforesaid Presiding Officer. Dissatisfied with this order, Muhammad Arif filed the instant appeal whereas respondents also filed an appeal No,409 of 2001 before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. The appeal filed by Ciba Giegy was registered in this Court as FAO 67 of 2004. As the Ciba Giegy appellant failed to appear in that appeal, so the aforementioned appeal was dismissed on 22-11-2004, whereas in the instant appeal, Ciba Giegy has been proceeded against ex parte.
3. Expressing his remonstrance against the impugned judgment, appellant's learned counsel gives out that the appellant while appearing as witness in the case as P.W.1 had categorically stated that he had been job less after his dismissal and had not joined any service. According tolearned counsel, this material part of the statement was not challenged in the cross-examination by putting any question to show its falseness, therefore, this material fact was to be legally accepted.
It has further been argued by the learned counsel that onus to prove that the appellant had taken any job, served any institution, joined any service for gain or took any employment for benefit was the duty of the employer to discharge, who had failed completely in this regard. So, the appellant was entitled to be granted the full benefits instead of 25% of back-benefits as awarded by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9 Multan. He has relied upon (National Bank of Pakistan v.
The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others) 1991 PLC 213 to sustain his arguments. He has further referred to the following cases reported in (Muhammad Aslam v. M/s. Hotel Midway House (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi and others) 1996 PLC 4 and (Abdul Rashid v. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and two others 1997 PLC 34 to contend that a charge-sheet when is found barred by time, as prescribed by the statute, no action can be taken against the employee, and in such an event full back-benefits are to be allowed to the employee.
4. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record, I have come to the conclusion that acceptance of grievance petition of the appellant itself proves that the case of termination of the appellant was not based on legal footings. The grant of 25% back-benefits to the appellant with reinstatement is also supportive of this fact that the appellant was wrongly dismissed from his service and had not gained anything after the dismissal.
The observations made by the learned Presiding Officer in para No,20 of his judgment, this the appellant was partly responsible for the delay of disposal of the case was not justified in that judgment, because no reason or instance was noted and quoted in the judgment, on the basis of which alleged delay could be attributed to him. How the appellant had caused the delay in the disposal of the case was not stated. So deduction of 75% of the back-benefits can be termed to have been made without any foundational basis, which could be held legally justified to have been made by the learned Presiding Officer. If an employee has been held entitled for the back-benefits, the subtraction from those full benefits has to be warranted by supplying the reasons to it. As no ground was laid in the judgment to deprive the full benefits so, it cannot be sustained, consequently, the appeal is accepted and by modifying the impugned judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, the petitioner is awarded full back-benefits.