This appeal arises from the decision dated 11th December, 1976 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate--ment was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had fought with Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Subhani, Mills Accountant. The appellant had also made a report against the said person saying that he had attacked him but no action was taken. The appellant was charge-sheeted, to which he submitted his reply. An enquiry was held, but the appellant boycotted it, inasmuch as the President of the Union of which his opponent Mr. Subbani was the General Secretary, was one of the members of the Enquiry Committee. The appellant had made an application to the Management for the exclusion of the said person, but according to the appellant, this request was refused and that is why he did not join the enquiry. In the beginning Mr. Subhani was not the member of the Enquiry Committee. The previous enquiry committee was dissolved and a new one was formed keeping the President of the C.B.A. Union as one of the members. In the enquiry proceedings of 6th August, 1975 it is mentioned that the appellant was informed that the name of Mr. Subhani had been removed from the membership of the Enquiry Committee, and, therefore, he should join the enquiry and that every opportunity would be given to him to defend himself, but he refused. These proceedings of 6th August, 1975 do not bear the signatures of the appellant. There is an order Exh.
R-B to the effect that the name of the President of CBA Union had been removed from the membership of the Enquiry Committee, but his docu--ment shows that its copy was not endorsed to the appellant, nor there is any evidence that it was delivered or brought to .His knowledge. Even neither in the proceedings of 6th August, 1975 nor in the enquiry report there is any reference to this document. If such an order had been passed and this document had been in existence before the enquiry was started, there appears to be no reason why this would not have been delivered to the appellant -by the Enquiry Committee when he is alleged to have been told that the President of the C.B.A. Union was no longer the member and also there appears to be no reason why the copy of this document was not served or delivered to the appellant. It appears that under some legal advice this document was prepared afterwards and that the proceedings of 6th August, 1975 which consist of only an order and nothing else, was prepared afterwards to mention in it that the appellant had been informed that the President of the Union was no longer the member. Even otherwise also the proceedings of the enquiry were not legal. The .Examination of the complainant namely Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Subhani, who is alleged to have been assaulted by the appellant, was necessary. The enquiry was completed on 11th August, 1975 but the statement of Mr. Subhani is dated 12th August, 1975. Although there was only one charge in the charge-sheet which was to the effect that the appel--lant had attacked and assaulted Mr. Subhani, but in the second show-- cause notice, it was also mentioned that the appellant had beaten up one Mr. Amanat Ali Shah also. The dismissal order was passed with re--ference to the second show-cause notice, meaning that while dismissing the appellant, the allegation that he had beaten Amanat Ali Shah was also kept under consideration, whereas the Enquiry Committee did not men--tion in their report that the said Amanat Ali Shah was also laboured by the appellant. Since extraneous matter was used against the appellant, which had not been proved in the enquiry, nor the appellant was given,, opportunity to defend himself against it, he was prejudiced. If .This ex--traneous matter had not been considered by the dismissing authority, it was possible that the punishment short of dismissal may have been prescribed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has said that if the enquiry is found as defective, re-enquiry may be ordered. I do not find any justification in this prayer. If Exh. R.B had not been prepared afterwards and it had not been wrongly mentioned in the order of 6th August, 1975 that the appellant had been informed that the President of the Union had been removed from the membership of the Enquiry Committee and there had been some other defect, of course there could be some justification in ordering re-enquiry. Moreover, in cases 'of embezzlement of huge amount, re-enquiry may be ordered, but not in the. Cases of such a nature.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the lower Court and the dis--missal order, direct the re-instatement of the appellant in service. Since the case has become very old and remained pending in the lower Court and in this Court and could not be decided due to rush of work, which is not the fault of the respondent, in the circumstances, the appellant cannot be allowed full back benefits. At the same time since the appellant suffered not for any fault on his party, therefore, he cannot be deprived of back benefits.
I, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, allow 50; per cent back benefits to him.