This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Chairman of the West Pakistan Industrial Court (Central Zone), Lahore, dated 31st March 1969, on an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance). The learned Court by the impugned order dismissed the application on two grounds namely, that the appellant having admitted his guilt, it was no necessary for the Department to prove the charge and that them was inordinate delay in filing the application under section 3 of the repealed Ordinance. The revision of the appellant was dismissed .by the Department on 29th August 1966, and he filed the application under section 31, of the repealed Ordinance on 14th February 1968. There was thus a delay of about 18 months.
2. The first question that requires consideration is as to whether the appellant admitted his guilt. It is necessary to mention as to what eras the charge against the appellant. The charge-sheet reads as under :- "Works Manager of this service has reported that on 20-2-66, in night shift one end plate of Dynamo was given to you for a repair with clear instructions that you should repair it by adding separate supporting plates instead of getting it welded. But you did not comply with the instructions and left the job to a blacksmith, who welded it which was not according to the satisfaction. Thus the vehicle could riot be despatched on route in time. On this account the work was again executed on the next morning. In this way you caused great hindrance in the smooth working of workshop as well as dislocated the operating schedule. If you had obeyed the lawful orders and executed the job in time, the above difficulties could be avoided. It is evident from the above that you do not perform your duties with keen interest. Apart from this your behaviour is reported to be offensive. All this speaks of your sheer negligence and lack of interest in the performance of your duties which amounts to gross misconduct."
3. I have gone through the statement of the appellant (Exh.R-5), before the Enquiry Officer. He has explained as to why he could not repair the Dynamo by adding separate supporting plate in the night. He stated that he could not do so as no drill was available at that hour in the night. He, however, carried out the order in the morning according to the directions of the Works Manager.
There is nothing on the record to show that the drill was available in the night. If the drill was not available in the night no additional plate could be added to the Dynamo. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellant admitted his guilt. In the background of the explanation, which the appellant gave, his asking for pardon cannot be construed to mean admission of the charge against him. The appellant thought that the explanation he ha given was a reasonable examination and, therefore, he should be excused for any mistake that he bad committed. In these circumstances, I would hold that the finding of Enquiry Officer relying on the admission of the appellant was perverse. There is no evidence on the record to establish that the appellant deliberately disobeyed the order of the Workshop Manager o behaved in an offensive manner. I would hold, that the finding o the Enquiry Officer is perverse.
4. In the result, the appellant is entitled to be re-instated. So far as the question of back wages is concerned; the appellant having approached the Industrial Court after a long delay, he is not entitled to any back benefits.