' This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 17-2-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he was guilty of insubordination, inasmuch as he reported to the higher Authorities against his D.T.O. That the latter had while travelling on a Trolly passed from the Uggoki Railway Station without getting information about a train, which might be coming from the opposite direction. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no rule that while passing in the area where the respondent was posted, clearance is to be taken from the incharge of the station to the effect whether any train was likely to come from any direction.
There is a general rule contained in Rule 221 of Permanent Way or Works, which reads as under:- "Protection of trolley on the line:-- ' The qualified person incharge of a trolley shall before leaving a station, ascertain the whereabouts of all approaching trains and shall when a clear view for an adequate distance;
(a) on a single line, in both directions; or
(b) on a double line, in the direction from which trains may approach, is not obtainable, take such precautions for the protection of his trolley as may be prescribed by special instructions."
' In the absence of special rule that in any particular area like the one where the Uggoki Railway Station is situated it is not necessary to ascertain the whereabouts of trains, following of Rule 221 contained in Chapter No, 7 of permanent Way or Works was necessary. This is not denied that D.T.O.
Did not enquire from the respondent regarding the whereabouts of approaching trains at Uggoki Railway Station and without making any such enquiry passed on. The respondent, therefore, was not guilty of insubordination in reporting to the higher A authorities that the D.T.O. Had not followed rule 221. Learned counsel for the appellant has wrongly made reference to clause (x) of the Subsidiary Rules which reads as under:- "(x) Any other offence not specified above which, in the opinion of competent authority, is so serious as to merit action under the Rules."
' It is argued that the competent authority considered the act of the respondent sufficiently serious and thus the act done by him amounts to misconduct. That act can be considered serious so as to merit action which a man of ordinary prudence considers so. Since the D.T.O. Did not follow Rule 221, it cannot be said that the act of the respondent in reporting the matter to the higher authorities was serious enough to merit action. The act done by the respondent does not amount to B misconduct. The learned lower Court also righlty held that the inquiry was not properly conducted.
Admittedly, the respondent made an application through the inquiry officer for changing the inquiry officer and for deputing a senior officer belonging to 22 grade. There is nothing on the record to show that the petition was rejected and the respondent was informed about the rejection. No doubt, the prayer that some senior officer be deputed was not justified but it was necessary to inform the respondent about the rejection of the application. Since he was not informed, therefore, he rightly did not participate in the enquiry and the enquiry was wrongly held ex parte. The enquiry officer should have, instead of holding ex parte. Enquiry, forwarded the application of the respondent to the competent authority for proper orders and should have concluded the enquiry if the petition had been rejected by the competent authority and intimation delivered to the respondent. So, the learned lower Court has rightly said that the respondent has been condemned unheard. It appears that the learned authorities have, on the basis of entertaining a point of honor, taken action against the respondent unjustified lee.
3. It has been argued that hack benefits have been wrongly allowed to the respondent. It is wrong that the respondent did not assert in his statement recorded before the learned lower Court that right from the date of dismissal from service he was jobless. He did say so and no evidence in rebuttal was produced to show that the respondent was employed elsewhere during that period.
The respondent, therefore, has been rightly allowed back benefits by the learned lower Court.
4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed.