DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated December 20, 1971, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered the re-instatement of the appellant, but did not allow any compensation. The facts briefly put are these.
2. The appellant, who was employed as a Conductor in the Government Road Transport Service at Hyderabad, was charge-sheeted for misconduct. He was charge-sheeted under section 7(2)(1) of the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance, 1961, (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for negligence. The negligence consisted in the fact that the appellant had failed to issue tickets to 16, passengers the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that mere negligence on one occasion would not amount to habitual negligence within the meaning of sec--tion 7(2)(1) of the Ordinance and ordered the re-instatement of the appellant.
3 Mr. A. Majeed, the learned representative for appellant contended, relying on a number of decisions of this Court, that a9 a rule an employee. Who had been dismissed illegally wheat se- Instated 3a entitled to full back benefits. Another fact which is deductable from a perusal of these decisions is that the amount of compensation would depend upon the circumstances of each ease. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much compensation should be awarded to an employee, who has been ordered to be re-instated. It would be relevant to reproduce a few sentences from the award of the learned Labour Court refusing, to allow back benefits. They run as under:- "I find the case has taken more than 3 years to be disposed of. This long delay can neither be attributed :o the applicant nor to the respondents. It has occurred on account of frequent changes of the Chairmen of the Court. Consequently, I find it would not be proper to burden the respondent with the pay etc., of the applicant for this long period for which they are not responsible. Therefore, the intervening period shall be treated as Leave Without Pay of the applicant with continuity in service from the date when his services were terminated."
4. On the face of it the reasoning appears to be quite plausible. There is, however, one fact, which cannot be ignored, namely, that the respondents cannot be excused for ignorance of law. The Transport Authorities could not dismiss the appellant unless he was found guilty of habitual negligence in performance of his duties. While the respondents cannot be burdened to pay for the whole of the period of over 3 years that the case has remained pending with the Labour Court, but they must pay some compensation to the appellant. In this connec--tion, it would be useful to refer to section 7(2)(i) of the Ordinance, which reads as under:-
(i) habitual negligence or neglect of work,
5. Relying on the decision of the case of Saifee Development Corporation Limited (PLD 1965 Kar.
347) b y the High Court, Karachi Bench the respondents contended that mere neglect of work for once would be insufficient to amount to misconduct. In Saifee Development Corporation's case.
Waheeduddin, J., while interpreting a similar provision of Stand--ing Order 13(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1960 held that the word "or" is not disjunctive and habitual qualifies both negligence and neglect of work. It appears to me that the parties were not aware of that case till in 1969, this Court held similarly that neglect must also be habitual. It was; therefore, incumbent on the Road Transport Authorities to have conceded while filing reply to the Written Argument3 of the appellant that the appellant was not guilty of habitual neglect of work and, therefore, was illegally dismissed from service. This was not done.
6. Mr. Ameer Hussain for the respondents contended, relying on a ease reported in 1971 PLC 146, that this Court in a circumstances did not allow back benefits. The circumstances of that case are clearly distinguishable. That case was disposed of by the Labour Court within a year. On the other band, the present case took over three and -'a half years before the Labour Court. The appellant must be-compensated. The written arguments on behalf of the appellant were filed by Mr. Majeed on 1st November 1971. I award compensation to the appellant from 1st November 1971 till the date he was re-instated in service. The appellant will be entitled to get all the emoluments that he would hive been otherwise entitled from 1st November 1971 till he was re-instated. The award of the learned Court is modified to this extent only.