' MIAN FASIH-UL- MULK, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court Mardan dated 2-7-2011, whereby Grievance Petition of respondent Muhammad Ilyas Khan was accepted and he was ordered to be re-instated in service from the date of filing grievance petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was a permanent employee in the appellant/mills and performing his duties as driver. He was suspended on the ground that he had produced a receipt of Rs,440 for filling CNG in vehicle No,0034-Mardan but in fact not filled in the same. Inquiry was conducted against him as well as one Safdar Khan for his negligence not to check and verify the availability of CNG in the vehicle and in light of the report of Inquiry Officer, the appellant along with Safdar Khan were dismissed from service. The appellant, after serving grievance filing grievance petition, which was accepted vide impugned judgment; hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant raised a two-fold contention; firstly, that the grievance notice was not signed by respondent, which being a pre-requisite for instituting the grievance petition, the petition of respondent before the Labour Court was not maintainable; and secondly, that respondent has wrongly been held entitled to back benefits by the Labour Court without any evidence on record that during the intervening period he was not doing any other job.
4. So for as the first contention is concerned, it is evident from the impugned judgment that such an objection was also raised by the appellant before the Labour Court, which has been decided in negative for the reason that respondent had admittedly written his name in Urdu on the notice under the direction of his counsel. I have also perused the notice available on record. The name of respondent appears quite at the place where signature of an applicant is required to be put on; hence it cannot be said that the notice has not been signed by the respondent himself. The factum would make no difference, as the requirement of section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been fully complied with by the respondent when there is no denial to the fact that it was the respondent who himself has written his name on the notice in Urdu. Therefore, I find no substance in the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The second contention of learned counsel for the appellant is forceful as the respondent has brought on record no evidence in this regard. It was obligatory on the respondent to have shown that during the intervening period of his dismissal from service and reinstatement he remained jobless. In such circumstances, respondent cannot competently claim back-benefits and he would only be entitled to receive the same from the date of order of re-instatement passed by the Labour Court.
6. On merits of the case, this Court finds no misreading of evidence or any other illegality/irregularity in the impugned judgment of learned Labour Court, which being based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on file does not require any interference from this end except to modify the, same to the extent that the respondent would be entitled to back- benefits from the date of judgment of the Labour Court.
7. Accordingly, the appeal in hand is partially allowed to the extent indicated above and the parties are left to bear their own costs.