' Qadir Ahmad petitioner has filed the present petition under section 151, C. P. C. Against Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills Ltd.. Who was impleaded as respondent No, 2 by the petitioner in his writ petition which was decided in his favour on 25th February, 1980. The petitioner had filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging orders, dated 1st October, 1975 and 17th February, 1976 whereby his services were terminated by respondent No, 2.
2. The petitioner has contended that respondent No, 2 has deliberately misconstrued the order of this Court by which his writ petition was allowed and orders, dated 1st October, 1975 and 17th February, 1976 were declared to be without lawful authority because respondent No, 2 has not re- instated him from the date when he was dismissed from service and has refused to pay him back benefits to which be is legally entitled. Respondent No, 2 on the other hands, has instituted fresh inquiry against him, has also suspended him without allowing him to resume his duty. The petitioner has prayed that a direction be issued to respondent No, 2 to implement order, dated 25th February, 1980 passed by this Court and that proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act be also taken against respondent No, 2 for disobeying the above order of the Court.
3. The petitioner's allegations have been controverted on behalf of respondent No, 2 by its Manager, who in the written statement filed by him, has explained that the petitioner was re-instated in compliance with the order of this Court but fresh inquiry proceedings were initiated against him, as it has been observed by this Court, while allowing the petitioner's writ petition that respondent No, 2 was not precluded from taking fresh action against the petitioner in accordance with law. As regards the back benefits claimed by the petitioner it has been stated that the petitioner's claim can be considered only in the light of the result of the fresh inquiry initiated against him.
4. I have heard the parties counsel. Respondent No, 2 has initiated fresh inquiry proceedings against the petitioner as the earlier order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner was set aside on a technical ground and the respondent's right to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, was not taken away as is evident from the order of the Court. The petitioner was re-instated after the acceptance of his writ petition by this Court but he was suspended with effect from 10th March, 1980 as fresh inquiry proceedings had been initiated against him. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No, 2 that the petitioner claim for back benefits can be considered only after the result of inquiry initiated agaiust him as he had not been exonerated of the charge that on 19th January, 1976 he had intimidated the labourers and had instigated them to go on strike. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioners was set aside by this Court, the petitioner was entitled to be re-instated from the date of dismissal from service. He was also entitled to all back benefits. Reference in this connection has been made by him to the Labour Court's decision in Khurshid Alam v. Bata Shoe Co. (Pak) Ltd. and the decision of this Court in Riaz Ahmed Shahid v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others . The first case mentioned above is distinguishable because in that case re-instatement was ordered after the order of dismissal was found to be wholly unjustified and illegal. The employer was not given any right to initiate fresh proceedings against the employee after the order of dismissal had been found to be illegal. In other words the decision regarding the order of dismissal passed against the employee was final.
But in the present case the employer's right to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner was not effected by the Court's decision. In the second case referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the point for determination was whether the employee was entitled to a second show-cause notice in view of the provisions of clause (4) of Standing Order No, 15 in the Schedule of the West Pakistan' Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
After holding the order of dismissal of the employee, illegal, it was specifically ordered that the employer should pay back benefits to the employees. In that case also the order passed by the Court was final and the employer was not given the right of initiating fresh proceedings against the employee.
5. It has been disclosed during the course of arguments that as a result of fresh inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner an order of dismissal from service has been passed against him by respondent No,
2. The petitioner can seek legal remedy against the aforementioned order. His claim for back benefits will depend on the result of legal action which he may initiate to challenge the order of dismissal from service passed against him.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no substance in the petitioner's contention that respondent No, 2 has failed to comply with the order of this Court and thereby has committed contempt of this Court. The petition filed by him is accordingly dismissed. 1974 PLC 6 1980 PLC 459