The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 17-1-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby Maqbool Hussain (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. Bata (Pakistan) Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re-instatement. Since both the appeals arise from the san4e decision. They are being disposed of together through this single judgment,
2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed was-absence without leave from 11-4- 1978 to 12-6-1978. Previously dismissal order" was passed against the respondent on 5-7-1978. On his grievance petition he was directed to be re-instated in service on the ground that no charge- sheet had been delivered to him. However, the appellant was permitted to hold fresh enquiry. The order of the Labour Court was upheld in appeal. .The appellant delivered the charge-sheet on 24-5-19W. The learned lower court has this time issued the direction to re-instate the respondent on the ground that the charge-sheet was time-barred. The learned lower court has not allowed back benefits on the ground that the respondent has been re-instated on account of the charge-sheet being time barred, 3.- Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the chare-sheet had been delivered in 1978 and in 1980 for the convenience of the respon--dent it was again delivered, so it has been wrongly held to be time barred. He has given reason for saying that in 1978 charge-sheet was delivered and that is that fresh enquiry was allowed. He says that if charge-sheet had not been delivered in 1978, fresh enquiry would not have been allowed by the lower court and order confirmed in appeal. This is true, as mentioned earlier, that the Labour Court had allowed fresh enquiry and the order was upheld in appeal, but the clear observations made by -the courts earlier would- not be wiped of by inadvertently allowing fresh enquiry. The period of one month fixed by Standing Order 15 (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 for serving charge-sheet had long ago expired when the Junior Labour Court in the previous order had allowed fresh enquiry; :but -it escaped the notice of the said court that :after, one month of the misconduct or its knowledge charge-sheet cannot be delivered.
The previous decision that the charge-sheet had not been delivered stands confirmed now, so the delivery, of charge-sheet in May, 1980 being the firs delivery was obviously time-barred and the learned lower court has rightly observed so. The order of re-instatement, therefore. Is unassailable.
4. So far as back benefits are concerned, the learned lower court has not found that the order of dismissal was on facts wrong or unjustified. Only on the ground that the charge-sheet was time- barred, the respondent has been re-instated. In his cross-appeal the respondent has not urged that he had proved before the learned lower court that the order of dismissal was factually wrong..
So he is not entitled to back benefits.
5. As upshot of the observations made above I do not hand any force in the two appeals and dismiss both of them in limine.