DECISION This is an appeal against an order dated the 14th of March 1970, whereby the learned Chairman of the 1st Industrial Court, Karachi, ordered the re-instatement of the respondent, Fakir Mohammad, on the ground that he had been wrongly dismissed' by the appellant. The learned Court also granted full back benefits.
2. There are two questions that require consideration. One is as to whether the respondent, Fakir Mohammad, was wrongly dismissed and as to whether he is entitled' to full back benefits from the date that he was dismissed to the date that the impugned order was passed: So far as the question of wrongful dismissal is concerned. I' have gone through the record. of this case and I have come of the conclusion-that the order .of the learned Court cannot be challenged. The only point that requires consideration is the question of "full back benefits". In this connection, the facts necessary are these. Fakir Mohammad was dismissed - on 6th August 1966. He made an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (herein. after called the Ordinance of 1959), on 5th January 1967. The application was disposed of, as already mentioned, on 14th March 1970. The application remained pending for a little over three years before the learned Court. The question is as to, whether the appellant should be penalised by payment of full back benefits up to-the date that the application was disposed of, for no fault of his.
3. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the respondent, Fakir Mohammad, contended in the first place that, the appellant having been found by the Court to be not guilty of the charge, he is entitled to full back benefits. In, this connection, reliance has been placed on rule 6 of the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers Rules, 1962. Under that Rule, if 'a worker was found to be not guilty, he would be entitled to full wages as if he was on duty. Rule 6, has no direct, application to the case. It does not, in any way; affect the power of the learned Court by disposing of the application as an industrial dispute. Section 31 of the Ordinance of 1959, or A section 37 ,of the. West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), do not lay down as to what order the Court should pass on an application under section 31 of the Ordinance of 1959, or section 37 of the repealed Ordinance. . The application has to be disposed of as an industrial dispute.. The Ordinances did not lay down exactly as to what power the Court could exercise while disposing of the application as an industrial-dispute. It was however, expected B that the Court will act judicially and in a manner fair and equitable to both the parties. Moreover, Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers Rules, 1962, contemplates that the charge framed against the worker would be disposed of expeditiously. That this is so would appear from Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1962, which lays down that the worker could not be suspended for more than 7 days during the enquiry.
4. The appellant was dismissed on 6th August 1966. He took about 5 months time to make an application under section 3,1 of the Ordinance of 1959. Though the delay in making the, application under section 31 of the Ordinance of 1959, appears to be quite long, but as this point had not been taken by the, appellant, I would take it that the respondent was pursuing his remedy before other authorities dulling this period. It was only when he failed to get redress from higher authorities that he made an application under section .31 of the Ordinance of 1959, on 5th January 1967, before the Court. In these circumstances, Fakir Mohammad would certainly be entitled to full wages up to the date that he made an application to the Court. . The other question would be that had lie not come to the Court, he would have -been never re-instated. An application under section 31 of the Ordinance of 1959, or section , 37 of the repealed. Ordinance should have been expeditiously disposed of. These applications ordinarily are simple applications. The Court has to record evidence of 3 .to 4 persons only. I would consider considering the number of cases pending before the Industrial Courts that these applications should be disposed of within a C period of 6 months. It should not have been disposed of in three, years time. I would grant wages to Fakir Mohammad up to 30th) June 1967, as the application should have been disposed of within 6 months time.
5. In conclusion, I 'would modify the order of the learned Court to this extent that Fakir Mohammad would be entitled to full wages from the date of his dismissal to 30th June 1967.