' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 4th December, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, directing the re-instatement of Muhammad Nazir (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) in service without back benefits. The Agricultural Engineers (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re-instatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The allegations made against the respondent as given in the charge-sheet Exh. P. 10 are that he failed to deposit Rs, 235 the hire charges of the bulldozer, that he made interpolation in the log book on page 58 to cover the embezzled amount, that he accused his officer of wild aspersions on the detection of the embezzlement made by him, that he made entry of five hours idle working of the Bulldozer on page 66 of the log book, whereas the Bulldozer had worked for one hour and idle running was for two hours only.
' Initially he was ordered to deposit Rs, 672 but on his appeal that was rejected, he was dismissed also.
3. No proper enquiry was made. The non-deposit of Rs, 235 is admitted by the respondent but his plea was that he had asked for the delivery of challan to deposit the amount but the unit supervisor refused saying that the amount be paid to him without receipt. But the recording of evidence in enquiry was necessary to establish the other charges. Some questions were put to the unit supervise and the respondent by the enquiry officer. No opportunity of cross-examination and production of defence was afforded. The result is that the other charges were not established. So far as accusing the unit supervisor is concerned, it was not established that it was false. It was the defence plea of the respondent, so unless that A had been adjudged as false, he could not be charge-sheeted and punished for it. Without losing time the respondent had asked the unit supervise to issue challan. He had in this respect made application Exh. P. 9 also on 3rd September, 1979. Needless to say that without the signatures of the officer no money can be deposited. The respondent was thus compelled not to deposit the amount and did not even temporarily misappropriate the amount. He was thus rightly directed to be re-instated in service. The amount was Rs, 235 and not of Rs, 672, so the direction in the Labour Court deposit Rs, 235 is also correct.
4. The reasons given by the learned lower Court for not allowing back benefits to the respondent are self-contradictory. On one hand the learned lower Court has held that the respondent did not deposit the amount as the challan was not signed by the unit supervisor and on the other hand, it says that within a few days, he could have deposited the amount after getting the challan form prepared. If it be said that he was responsible for the non-preparation of chailan form, then the amount was misappropriated by him. What actually stands established is that the amount could not be deposited since the unit supervisor did not sign the challan. The respondent stated before the learned lower Court that he could not get any employment during the period of dismissal. This was not rebutted by the appellant. So, the respondent is entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is rejected and accepting the cross-appeal of the respondent, the learned lower Court order is modified allowing back benefits to the respondent.