' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 31-3-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Wuhan, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was transferred from Lahore to Sahiwal but he did not join there. His services were terminated on the ground that his post at Sahiwal could not be kept vacant. The learned lower Court has issued direction to reinstate the respondent for the reason that no charge-sheet was given and no enquiry was held. The respondent has not been terminated for any misconduct.
In the termination order the ground for termination given is that the respondent has not reported at his new place of posting and his post there could not be kept vacant indefinitely. It is also urged that the conduct of the respondent reveals that he does not wish to serve in accordance with the requirement of the bank. This allegation does not amount to misconduct. As no misconduct has been committed, there was no need of following the procedure given in para. 258(3) and (4) of the Wage Commission Award. The services of the respondent were terminated under para.
234. This reason given for termination can be a valid ground of termination but in the present case it has not been established. The respondent could have joined at the new place of his posting if he had been relieved from Lahore. There is no relieving order on the file that may have been issued before the termination order was passed. It is mentioned in the termination order, as observed above, that the respondent does not want to serve in accordance with the requirement of the bank, meaning that the respondent does not want to serve at Sahiwal. This may be correct. The respondent may not be willing to go to Sahiwal but the bank has itself facilitated the respondent to fulfil his wishes. In the absence of the relieving order, he could not join at Sahiwal. Even in the transfer order, it is not mentioned that the respondent had been relieved from Lahore. The respondent has brought a contempt petition also in which he has produced a letter Annexure 'C' addressed to him. The respondent has been asked to report at Sahiwal. This letter is dated 14-2- 1983. No such letter was brought on the file of this case. Moreover this letter too does not show when the respondent was relieved from Lahore. For the first time he was informed by the termination order that his post was vacant at Sahiwal. Since by that order his very service were terminated, he was not in a position to report at Sahiwal. So the termination order was not maintainable and was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court although on different grounds that are not sufficient.
3. As a result, the appeal being without any force is dismissed.