' This appeal arises from the decision dated 17-12-1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and the punishment awarded to him was set aside with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that on 22-3-1976. When the respondent was Cabinman at Sahiwal, a railway wagon during shunting derailed. The respondent was charge- sheeted and after he gave reply was awarded punishment of W.I.P. For one year. No doubt, it was the option of the concerned officer either to appoint an Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee, or to decide the case himself after considering the explanation of the workman concerned.But when it was proposed to make an enquiry, it should have been made according to rules. The report of D.T.I.
Multan dated June, 1976 shows that an enquiry was made but no enquiry proceedings are on the lower court file. No evidence was produced by the appellant before the lower court. Caution is given by the Cabinman and the point is changed by the pointsman. The pointsman is present on the spot and he watches the position of the compartment which is under shunting. He gives signal to the cabinman to open the lock and the eabinman after opening the lock gives him information by the return signal. The pointsman then changes the point. If the pointsman makes mistake in changing the point, the derailment takes place. The allegation was that the point was changed when still the train was moving. So it is obvious that the fault was with the pointsman and not with the respondent, who was present in the cabin. If evidence had been produced to the effect that it was not the fault of the pointsman but of the cabinman, that evidence could have been considered and opinion formed as to who was responsible for derailment. In the absence of evidence it is difficult to fix the responsibility.
3. Besides, the charge-sheet, reply to the charge-sheet and the enquiry report, there is absolutely no other material on the record enabling the Court to decide the case one way or the other. In these circumstances, the learned lower court was left with no other alternative but to accept the grievance petition. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that since the enquiry was defective, the respondent was not entitled to back benefits. Not that the enquiry was defective, but rather no enquiry was held. The respondent, therefore, was rightly held to be entitled to back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.