The decision, dated 4-4-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Ferozewala at Lahore has been challenged, whereby the appellant was directed to be re-instated in service but the respondent was permitted to hold inquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant. Back benefits were directed to depend upon the result of the inquiry if any made by the respondent.
2. Admittedly, no charge-sheet was issued to the appellant before his services were terminated.
According to Standing Order 15(4), the alleged misconduct is brought to the notice of the employee concerned within one month of its commission or within one month of the date on which the employer comes to know of it. Period of limitation for charge---sheeting the appellant had expired long before the Labour Court had permitted fresh inquiry. This is a mandatory provision of Standing Order 15(4) that the misconduct should be brought to the knowledge of the worker concerned. Since no charge-sheet was given, no question of holding inquiry in the charges could arise. The permission given by the learned lower Court for holding inquiry is illegal and thus not sustainable and the appellant could have been directed to be re-instated without allowing the, respondent to hold inquiry into the charges.
3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the appellant stated on oath that after the termination of his services, he remained jobless. So he was entitled to back benefits also.
4. As a result the appeal is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the permission given to the respondent to hold inquiry is set aside and the appellant is allowed) full back benefits.
A.E.