' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 1st February, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, directing the reinstatement of Kabir Ahmad (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) in service without back benefits. The respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways (Workshops), Lahore (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has in his appeal challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent in service. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. On the ground of absence from duty the respondent was removed from service after holding an enquiry. The only ground on which the respondent has been reinstated in service is that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine Mouj Din, complainant. A perusal of the statement of Mouj Din recorded by the Enquiry Officer reveals that in reality the respondent was not given opportunity to cross-examine him. Mouj Din deposed against the respondent with regard to charges levelled against him, so by not affording him opportunity to cross-examine the said prosecution witness, opportunity to defend himself was not given to the respondent. This was obviously a serious and fatal defect, in the presence of which, the order of removal from service was not sustainable.
3. The learned lower Court has disallowed the respondent back benefits for the reason that failure on the part of the Enquiry Officer to afford opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine Mouj Din, complain-8 ant, was a technical defect. I cannot agree. It was a serious defect and not merely a technical defect. However, instead of allowing re-enquiry I disallow back benefits to the respondent and thus maintain the order of the learned lower Court.