' This appeal arises from the decision dated 7-6-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that according to the report of Sample Man Mohammad Sarwar, L.S.W. Remained flowing out through rubber pipe from 11.40 p.m. To 5.00 a.m.
On the night between 12/13-11-1981, which was not only against the rules of the company but caused a great loss to it. The respondent was charge-sheeted to which he replied that under the instructions of the Plant Superintendent he had flown the above-mentioned liquid. The defect in the enquiry on account of which the learned trial Judge set aside the order of dismissal and directed the re-instatement of the respondent is that first of all the statement of the respondent was recorded and he was subjected to searching questions by the Enquiry Officer and, thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the respondent was not re-recorded giving him opportunity to explain the material brought before him in the prosecution evidence.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since in answer to the charge-sheet, the respondent had admitted the allegation made against him, holding of enquiry was not necessary, therefore, even if there was any defect in the enquiry, the same was not material and the order of dismissal passed on the admission of the respondent could not be disturbed. This is true that the factum of flowing of liquid through the rubber pipe was admitted by the respondent, but this was not an unqualified admission without any plea of defence. The respondent took up the plea that under the instructions of the Plant Superintendent he had let the liquid flow out through the rubber pipe. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the liquid was a precious thing. It may be so but since according to the respondent, under the instructions of the Plant Superintendent the liquid was allowed to flow out there was no criminal intention of the respondent. If an opportunity had been given to the respondent to make statement after recording the prosecution evidence and to produce his defence, he would have proved that under the instructions of the Plant Superintendent he had let the liquid flow out and whether the liquid was valuable or not. Since the boss of the respondent had asked him to flow out the liquid, the respondent may have thought that the liquid was useless and, therefore, was ordered to be evacuated-The admission not being unqualified, the making of enquiry was necessary and since the enquiry was defective, causing prejudice to the respondent, the order of dismissal was rightly struck down by the lower Court.
There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.