' The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision, dated 31st July, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The facts are that on 31st July, 1976 Bus No, 6886 met with an accident while being driven by the respondent by hitting a motor car coming from the opposite side, resulting in the death of the driver of the car and sufficient damage to the said car. According to the appellant, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent, inasmuch as he, while the car was coming from the opposite direction, tried to overtake a tonga going ahead of him. The case of the respondent is that no tonga was ahead of him and that the car struck against the bus. On behalf of the appellant Maqsood-ul-Hasan, Depot Superintendent, who had after the accident inspected the spot and had prepared the site plan, appeared as a witness in enquiry. The respondent did neither give his own statement, nor proposed to produce any defence witness. He said that his earlier statement was sufficient. Regarding defence evidence he said that charge report be perused. Thus, proper opportunity had been afforded to him to produce defence. He had fully cross-examined the P. W. Examined during the enquiry.
3.
3. However, the charge-sheet was time-barred. The accident took place on 31st July, 1976 but the charge-sheet was delivered on 20th October, 1976. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Head Office received the accident report on 11th October, 1976 and soon after its receipt charge-sheet was delivered. The accident report is Exh. R-10 which is undated, nor it is mentioned when it was received by the employer. The evidence produced in the enquiry and in the learned lower Court too does not show when the report was made and when it was received by the employer. However, site inspection was done on the same day. This is not believable that the report was sent with a delay of three months or it remained in transit for such a long time. Since it has not been proved that the report was received by the employer within one month before the issuance of the charge-sheet it has not been proved that the charge-sheet was served within one month of the knowledge of accident. The charge-sheet was, therefore time-barred. On merits the respondent has no case, inasmuch as he was at fault in trying to overtake tonga at a bridge which was as per evidence narrow, particularly when a car was coming from the opposite side. The respondent should have waited till the car had crossed the bus and may have overtaken the tonga thereafter. The statement of the respondent that no tonga was ahead does not appear to be true, because if everything been normal, no question of the taking place of the accident could arise.
Since the charge-sheet was time-barred, the appellant could not be dismissed. The order of dismissal was thus rightly set aside by the learned lower Court. Since due to technical defect, the respondent has succeeded, he is not entitled to back benefits.
4.
4. As upshot of the observations made above I partly accept the appeal and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower court disallow back benefits to the respondent.