This appeal arises from the decision dated 27th September, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour 0burt No. 5. Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate--ment in service was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that the audit party detected shortage of cloth to the extent of 267 yards on 26th June, 1978. Thereafter, measurements were made in July, 1978 and January,. 1980. On 9th February, 1980 the appellant was charge-sheeted and after an enquiry being held against him, he was dismissed from service. In the grievance petition one of the objections was that the charge-sheet was time-barred. The learned lower Court did not touch this aspect of the case. The alleged misconduct firstly came to the knowledge of the employer in June, 1978 when the audit party made report against the appellant about the shortage in the cloth. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that of on applications of the appellant measurements were made many times and finally in 1980, therefore the charge-sheet is not time-barred. No application of the appellant has been pointed out from the record. From the very beginning responsibility was fixed upon the appellant, so it cannot be said that it was not known who was liable for the shortage. If the respondent lingered on the matter upto January, 1980, the legal benefit accrued to the appellant by the lapse of time cannot be denied. Ascertainment of exact shortage was not necessary for taking action against the appellant. Exact shortage was necessary for recovering the price of the missing cloth. The report of the auditor was sufficient to charge-sheet, the appellant and during enquiry measurement could be made again in the presence of the appellant to prove that actually there was a shortage. Enquiries' are made not only to satisfy the requirement of law but also to find out if misconduct was actually committed. If during enquiry no mis--conduct is proved, the employee is acquitted. So for charge-sheeting re-measurement was not necessary.
The charge-sheet, therefore, was time-barred by more than two years.
3. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the dis--missal order, direct the re-instatement of the appellant in service. As the appellant has succeeded on a technical ground, he is not entitled to back benefits.