' The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision, dated 1st March, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant lodged against his reversion from the post of fitter to grease-man was dismissed.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had gone to grease-box section, on 28th October, 1979 and disgraced the seniors. He has delivered charge-sheet Exh. P-2, to which he replied. Feeling not satisfied with the reply, an enquiry was held against the appellant.
3. The learned lower Court has missed to see that the charge-sheet is vague, inasmuch as it does not disclose with actually the appellant is alleged to have said. It does not correspond to the report on the basis of which it was issued. show-cause notice (called generally the charge-sheet) is only medium to tell the worker concerned what were actually the allegations made against him. Where the show-cause notice is vague, it causes prejudice to the worker and the whole superstructure raised on such a basis falls to the ground. If copy of the complaint or report which is the basis of the charge-sheet is enclosed, the defects stand cured. It appears that legal brains afterwards realised the defect, therefore, it was afterwards added in the charge sheet that the copy of the report was attached to it. If actually the copy of the report made against the appellant had been attached to the 1st show cause notice Exh. P-2, a note to that effect would have been in carbon paper reproduction and not in on ink. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since the appellant had in his reply to the charge-sheet used the word 'report', it shows that copy of the report was in reality sent with the charge-sheet. This argument has no force. In the charge-sheet reference is made to the report, therefore, the appellant came to know that the basis of the charge-sheet was some report of Sabir Hussain Shah and, therefore, he contended in his' reply that the report was wrong. No evidence was produced before the B learned lower Court to the effect that copy of the report had been sent to the appellant alongwith the charge-sheet. The order of reversion, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity and is not sustainable.
4. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order of reversion and that of the learned lower Court, direct the reinstatement of the appellant on the post of fitter right from the date of reversion. However, as the appellant has succeeded on a technical ground, he will not be entitled to back wages of the post of fitter.