' The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 7-6-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed as driver on 18-2-1977. His services were terminated on 25-11-1981 on the ground that he had been appointed on ad hoc basis.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that according to term No, 2 of the Terms and Conditions contained in Exh. R-1 the services of the respondent could be terminated on 14 days notice and since it was done, the order was legal and could not be set aside. According to rule 4(3)(c) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, he was to be governed by the terms and conditions of service, but question arises whether he was apprised of the terms and conditions of service under which he was employed. Exh. R-1 does not show that it was brought to the notice of the respondent, nor any evidence was produced to this effect. Since the terms and conditions of service contained in Exh. R-1 were not notified in the official Gazette, there is no presumption that the respondent was aware of them. This is a question of fact and could be proved by some evidence which is wanting. In these circumstances, the respondent has been rightly directed to be reinstated in service.
4. Possibility cannot be excluded that the terms and conditions of service may have been informed to the respondent, therefore, he gets only a benefit of doubt and thus in the circumstances, he is not entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is disallowed back benefits.