' This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIlth Labour Court, given on 12th February, 1981, directing the re-instatement in service of the respondent herein but refusing him back benefits on the ground that there was no evidence to show that he was without a job during the long period that the proceedings took place before the Court. The said order was based on the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the termination of services of the respondent took place without holding any enquiry or affording him proper opportunity of defending himself.
2. The stand of Mr. Farkhand Ali, the learned counsel of the appellant is that in fact the services of the respondent were never terminated but domestic enquiries are proposed to be held 'against him for an alleged fraud committed by him. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (1) and of this Tribunal in the case of Niaz Ahmad v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd., decided on 24th November, 1980, where the law on the subject has been reviewed in some detail where it has been held that if {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1980 SC 307 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' the services of an employee are terminated without a proper enquiry or affording him reasonable opportunity of defence, the employer should be given an option of holding a proper enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the employee, as failure to hold such an enquiry or affording him an opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry, does not wash away the guilt of the employee, both the learned counsel agreed that the appellants should have the option of holding a proper enquiry against the respondent, and that further despite the order of the learned Labour Court refusing to grant back benefits to the respondent, the payment of the back benefits would depend upon the result of that fresh enquiry.
As this submission is in accordance with the principle of law as decided by the authorities, l would modify the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court to the effect that while the order of re- instatement in service of the respondent is maintained, the appellants would be at liberty to hold a proper enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the respondent and to take action on the basis of such enquiry. Furthermore, the 4 payment of back benefits to the respondent would depend upon the result of that enquiry. The enquiry proceedings should commence within a period of 2 months from the date of this order, and if they are not so commenced, it shall be deemed that the appellants do not wish to exercise the option of the enquiry. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.