' The decision, dated 28th May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala has been challenged in this appeal. The grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service has been dismissed by the impugned decision.
2. The appellant was a cashier-cum-clerk in the respondent bank. He applied for marriage grant filling in the required pro forma on 16th February, 1981 giving therein his date of marriage as 6th February, 1981. He was already a married person. It is alleged that previous to this also the appellant had applied for marriage grant but it was refused on the ground that the grant could be allowed for the first marriage.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that as the previous application of the appellant had been rejected on the ground that the grant could be allowed for first marriage, the appellant by mentioning the date of his marriage in the 2nd application as 6th February, 1981 deceived the respondent and thus was rightly terminated. There is no evidence on the record that the appellant had been informed about the rejection of his previous application. It, therefore, does not stand established that the appellant knew that marriage grant could be allowed for firs marriage. The rules of the respondent not being statutory, there is no pre assumption that the bank employees know them. The appellant thus did not commit any misconduct in asking for the marriage grant for his marriage which was not the first one.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of removal from service, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service.
He is not entitled to back benefits as he without taking the trouble of looking into the relevant rules applied for marriage grant without any right.