This is an appeal against an order of the learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated 31st October 1968, on an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance). The appellant was charge- sheeted for misconduct and dismissed from service on 5th November 1966, a with effect from 6th November 1966.
2. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity to face the enquiry. The charge-sheet was served on the on 30th October 1966. He was required to submit his explanation within three days, i.e. he had to submit his explanation by the 3rd of November 1966. He was on duty, from 1st November 1966 to 5th November 1966. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the appellant had no opportunity to face the enquiry.
3. Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended in the first place that if the respondent was on duty from 1st November to 5th November 1966, he could submit his explanation to the Enquiry Officer. It would appear from Exb. A. W. 1/2, that he used to be on duty from 6 o'clock in the morning till 6 o'clock in the evening. The respondent stated before the Industrial Court that he had informed the Duty Clerk that he had to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet, but that he (Duty Clerk) told him that there was shortage of Conductors and, therefore, he could not spare him (respondent). Principle of natural justice required that the respondent should have some leisure to consider the charge-sheet and submit the explanation. I can hardly be said that when the respondent was all the time required to perform his duty, he bad reasonable oppor--tunity to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet.
4. In the second place, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that the respondent was not on duty from 1st November to 5th November 1966. There is no force in this contention. The respondent has produced 'Con--ductor Attendance Card' (Exh. A. W. 1/2), showing that he was on duty from 1st November to 5th November 1966. Not only this, an application was made on behalf of the respondent to summon the Duty Clerk with the Duty Register. The appel-- lant failed to produce him or the register. The inference is inescapable that Duty Clerk was produced, he would have supported the case of the respondent. I would hold that the respondent was on duty from 1st November to 5th November 19(6. In this connection, I may also observe that the whole procceding took place on the 5th of November 1966.
5. Lastly, Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi contended that theappellant shouldbe burdened with the pay for the whole of the period that the respondent as out of employment.Mr. Amanullah Qureshi, for the respondent, agreed that the respondent may be paid his salary for half of the period that he was out of employment. This should be calculated from 6th November, 1966, to the date that the award was made, i.e. 31st October 1968.
6. The appeal is dismissed with this modification that the respondent will be entitled to receive his salary for half of the periodhat he was out of service. The period should be calculated from 6th November 1966, to the date that the industrial Court passed the order,.e. 31st October 1968.