' The decision dated 29th February, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegations against the respondent were that a parallel banking system had been running in the branch by one Muhammad Ashraf and the respondent was-an active participant in itand that a huge amount of Rs, 5,05, 575 was received by the respondent from Muhammad Ashraf and that Rs, 520 were recovered from him at the instance of the said Muhammad Ashraf Mt. Zulkarnain Hyder, who had made checking deposed that the amount of Rs, 84,000 was paid by the respondent to Asif Mahmood, a fictitious person. He also said that receiving cashier's book folios showed that at the end of the day, the respondent had been signing the receiving-cashier's book folios. He also said that the amounts received from the account-holders were not accounted for in bank's books but fictitious credit entries were made in the accounts to satisfy the account-holders.
He has not said in whose handwriting the entries are but the respondent being the cashier had to make entries. If he did not make the entries, then he had to explain who made the entries in the books maintained by him. So, he cannot avoid the responsibility. The learned lower Court has rightly held that service of second show-cause notice was necessary but it was not done. Sub- para. (5) of para. 258 of 1st Wage Commission Award says that enquiry report is to be placed before the competent authority alongwith the statement of the accused. This statement is to be obtained from the employee after the delivery of the copy of the enquiry report to him because without that he does not know what is the report and how he has been found guilty. I have discussed this point in detail in Appeal No, K1-595/80 Punjab titled as `U. B. L. v. Mirza Ghulam Asghar' decided on 30th May, 1982 and need not repeat in detail here. Since second show-cause notice was given, the respondent was rightly directed to be reinstated in service. Since the respondent succeeded on a technical point; he was not entitled to back benefits.
3. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is disallowed back benefits.