DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated 14th May 1970, whereby the learned Court allowed the application of the respondent under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance). The learned Court came to the conclusion that the respondent could not have been dismissed for the offence for which he was not charge- sheeted, The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these:
2. The respondent was a Conductor in the Government Transport Service, Hyderabad. His bus was checked and it was found that 17 passengers were without tickets and that the respondent had not realised fare front any one of them. He was charge-sheeted for neglect of work. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of neglect of work. The District Manager on perusing the report did not agree with him. 'The District Manager himself examined the respondent and came to the conclusion, after perusing his past record, that he was guilty of misconduct, inasmuch as, he had habitually neglected his -work and dismissed him.
3. Before the learned Court; it was urged that there-was a violation of the ingredients of section 37 of the repealed Ordinance, inasmuch as, he could not be dismissed on a ground for which he was not charge-sheeted. The admitted position is that the respondent was never charge-sheeted for habitual negligence of work. He was charge-sheeted for neglect of work. The Enquiry Officer also found him guilty only of neglect of work. The District Manager could not dismiss the respondent without giving him an opportunity to show cause for habitual negligence in work. There is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court.
4. Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned Representative for the Department, prayed that this Court should interfere with the order of the learned Court so far as back benefit is concerned. I do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the Court as regards back benefits. The respondent was clearly not guilty of any misconduct and, therefore, his dismissal being wrongful he was entitled to back benefits. The appeal is dis--missed.