' This appeal arises from the decision dated 31-5-1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement was accepted and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent, for which he was charge-sheeted, was that he on 15-7- 1978 at about 4-15 p.m. Went to the State Bank site where the building of State Bank was being erected and incited the workers working there to stop work and to go on strike. The respondent denied the allegation made in the charge-sheet but his reply was considered unsatisfactory and an enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal. It is alleged that due to the strike, the company sustained a loss of Rs,15,000. The respondent told that he was passing by the side of building at about 4-30 p.m. Where he saw some workers gathering on the road side. They complained to him that they had not been paid their wages for the last 7-8 weeks, whereupon, he had a conversation with the Management. According to the Presiding Officer of the lower court, two witnesses out of labour class working on the site were examined, who were Mirza Hanif and Mohammad Shafi and that both of them did not support the case of the appellant. Mirza Hanif in cross-examination stated that he had seen the respondent at about 4-30 p.m. At the site and that he said that overtime shall not be given; therefore, work should be stopped. Most probably the cross-examination of Mirza Hanif witness escaped the notice of the learned Presiding Officer. The remaining witnesses no doubt say that they had not seen the respondent at the scene of strike.
However, the statement of the witnesses were not got signed by the respondent. In his statement the respondent challenged the enquiry proceedings and stated that the Enquiry Officer was partial.
He also stated that before the start of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had called five prosecution witnesses in the room and for complete one hour he had been giving them instructions and after that they called him. Since the witness did not depose confidence in the Enquiry Officer, his signatures should have been received on the statements of the witnesses. Even otherwise, the enquiry proceedings are not trustworthy. The statement of Mr. Abdur Rashid does not bear the signatures of even the Enquiry Officer. None of the statements of the witnesses bears the signatures of the Enquiry Officer, except the statement of Mr. E.V. Nathanial and Norass.
3. In these circumstances, the learned lower court was justified in passing the order of reinstatement of the respondent. Since one witness from the labour class and the witness of the management i.e, Mr.Norass, supported the case of the appellant, it cannot be said that there was no material on the file in support of the charge. The respondent takes the benefit of the fact that the enquiry proceedings are not satisfactory and that some of the statements of the witnesses do not bear the signatures of the Enquiry Officer and of the respondent. So, the respondent was not entitled to back benefits. I, accordingly, partly accept the appeal and modify the order of the learned lower court upholding the direction of re-instatement and setting aside the direction' of payment of back benefits.