DECISION These are two cross-appeals one bearing No. KAR-153 of 1985 filed by Pakistan T&T Department and the other bearing No. KAR-168 of 1985 filed by Muhammad Alam worker; both against an impugned order, dated 23-4-1985 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V , Karachi. I would, therefore, dispose of both these appeals by this decision.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Alam worker, was a permanent employee of Pakistan Telephone and Telegraph Department, Telegraph Stores, Karachi and was drawing a basic salary of Rs.860 per month. It was a case of Muhammad Alam that he was falsely involved in a murder case and was arrested by the Police on 16-2-1981 and consequently, he was granted bail on 1-7-1982. Soon after his release on bail, Muhammad Alam reported for duty to his Officer, but he was told by the said Officer to report for duty after completion of the murder case. Ultimately on 24-11-1983, Muhammad Alam was acquitted by the Sessions Court and thereafter, he reported for duty on 5-12-1983, but instead of permitting him to resume the duty, he was required to give explanation about his absence. On 9-1-1984, Muhammad Alam had submitted his explanation.
However, the T&T Department, vide its Letter No. 2249/73, dated 31-12-1983, that as back as vide Letter No. PFF-2249/68, dated 25-4-1981, his services had been terminated with effect from 16-2- 1981. Thereupon, the worker, Muhammad Alam, had submitted his grievance notice on 14-1-1984 and then filed grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The T&T Department hat filed objections wherein inter alia they had admitted that Muhammad Alam was in their employment and his services were terminated with effect from 16-2-1981 on the ground of his absence from duty. It was further admitted that the Police in a murder case arrested him. It was alleged that after his release on bail, he was neither reported for duty nor intimated about his absence and that he remained absent from duty from 16-2-1981 to 5-12-1981, therefore, his services were terminated. The Department further disputed that the worker, Muhammad Alam was their permanent employee.
4. Both the parties submitted their respective affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross- examined and the learned Labour Court considering the record and evidence in the case had allowed the grievance petition of Muhammad Alam filed by him under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, directing the T&T Department to re-instate him in service with 40% back benefits within 10 days, hence these appeals.
5. I have heard Mr. Khadim Hussain, Assistant Engineer for Pakistan T&T Department and Muhammad Alam, the worker in person and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that Muhammad Alam was in the permanent employment of Pakistan T&T Department and he was arrested on 16-2-1981 in a murder case and was kept in police custody, therefore, he could not attend his duties. It is further an admitted position that this arrest was in the knowledge of T&T Department, vide letter, dated 4-9-1981, Annexure '66-A' of the Labour Court record. It is contended by Muhammad Alam that though it was within the proper and reasonable knowledge of the Department that he was arrested by the police on 16-2-1981 in a murder case and was in police custody till 1-7-1982, when he was granted bail and that ultimately on 24-11-1983, he was acquitted from the murder charge by the Sessions Court, yet right from 1-7- 1982 to 5-12-1983 he was not allowed to resume his duties despite of the fact that he approached several times to the concerned officers of the Department for allowing him to do so. It is further contended by him that on 9-10-1984 when he submitted the required explanation of his alleged absence, he was delivered a belated letter, dated 31-12-1983 informing him therein that, vide letter, dated 25-4-1981, the Department had terminated his services with effect from 16-2-1981 on the ground of absence, when he was initially arrested in a false murder case. Further, it is the case of Muhammad Alam that after his release on bail, he reported for duty and on 17-2-1982, he was paid certain dues by the Department and even on that date, he was not informed about his guilt resulting in his termination of services, therefore, the letter of the Department, dated 31-2-1983, is nothing but merely an afterthought, hence, he was illegally victimized and condemned unheard.
On the other hand, the Department has contended that Muhammad Alam's absence from duty was deliberate and intentional and unauthorized. In view of the facts and other circumstances as well as the admitted position, I see no force in the contentions of the Department, therefore, held that Muhammad Alam's services were wrongly and illegally terminated by the Department.
6. For the above reasons, I maintain the impugned order and dismiss both these appeals with the directions that the worker, Muhammad Alam be re-instated in services by the Pakistan T&T Department and he be paid 40$ (forty per cent) back benefits forthwith.