' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 23rd September, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that fie had misappropriated Rs, 89.25. A criminal case was got registered against him, in which he was convicted under section 409 and sentenced to 15 months' R. I. And fined by the Anti-Corruption Judge. On this ground his services were terminated by the appellant. It was alleged that an industrial dispute was pending but no permission under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was obtained before dismissing the respondent. In the termination order it is not mentioned that for being convicted and sentenced to 15 months' R. I. The respondent had incapacity himself from rendering service to the appellant. If this had been the ground, of course charge-sheeting and making of enquiry would not have been necessary. The termination order shows that on account of being convicted and sentenced in a case of misappropriation which amounted to misconduct, the services of the respondent were terminated. Charge-sheeting and making of enquiry, therefore, were. Necessary.
Charge-sheeting and making of enquiry is necessary not only for dismissal but even for termination, as required by sub-clause (5) of Standing Order 12, which reads as under :- "The services of a permanent or temporary workman shall not be terminated on the ground of misconduct, otherwise than in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 15'
3. However, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that taking of permission under section 47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was necessary. The certificate is only to the effect that an industrial dispute was pending but there is nothing on the record to show whether the said dispute had any connection with the misconduct committed by the respondent. Since the respondent was neither charge-sheeted, nor any enquiry was held, the learned trial Judge was justified in ordering his re-instatement in service. However, since on the technical ground the respondent was re-instated, he was not entitled to back benefits. I, therefore, partly accept the appeal and modify the impugned decision of the lower Court by disallowing back benefits to the respondent.