1. ' This appeal arises from the decision dated 20-10-1981 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was accepted without back benefits.
2. ' The appellant was a Machine Operator with the respondent and he was charge-sheeted for entering a fictitious amount of Rs,20,000 in the accounts Card of his own son and subsequently withdrawing Rs,15,000 from the said account and when this fraud was discovered the appellant absconded from the Branch. He was charge-sheeted which was sent on 13-9-81 at his home address and it was received back with the remarks that the addressee was not available.
3. Thereafter, instead of making another attempt to serve the charge-sheet on him another charge- sheet had been given to him regarding his absence for more than 10 days. The appellant replied to the said charge-sheet. The reply was not considered satisfactory and inquiry was held against him which was participated in by him. As a result of the inquiry he was dismissed on both the charges.
4. He after the service of grievance notice brought petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi.
5. ' The learned Court accepted the petition on the ground that although the charge-sheet regarding the fraud had not been served upon him yet inquiry was made on the said charge-sheet and dismissal order passed on both the charges. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that none service of charge-sheet regarding fraud was not a technical defect, therefore, back benefits should have been allowed to the appellant by the lower Court.
6. ' Admittedly the appellant could not be dismissed on the charge of fraud because the charge- sheet regarding fraud was neither served upon him nor he submitted any reply to it. The Enquiry Officer was not, therefore, justified in bringing under consideration allegation made against the appellant in respect of the said defalcation. Likewise the Dismissing Authority also could not consider the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the matter brought on the record in respect of said defalcation. Apparently extraneous matter was brought on the record for which there was no proper notice to the appellant. If this extraneous matter had not been brought on the record the punishing authority may have prescribe some lesser penalty short of dismissal. So far as the absence is concerned it was duly proved according to the dismissing authority and the lower Court. So only on the ground of technical defect for not serving a charge-sheet regarding fraud the appellant was reinstated, therefore, he was not entitled to the back benefits. But for the material about fraud brought on the record the order of dismissal on the ground of absence would not have been set aside.
7. ' In the circumstances the lower Court was justified in not allowing back benefits and I not finding any force in the appeal dismiss in limine.