' The two appeals captioned above emerge from the decision dated 27-8-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala whereby Muhammad Haroon (hereinafter called as the appellant) was allowed wages for the period from 25-9-1982 to 16-5- 1983 for which he had remained without work and disallowed remaining wages for the months of July and August, 1982 during which he remained suspended. The appellant in his appeal has claimed remaining wages for the period of suspension, whereas the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore (hereinafter described as the respondent) has challenged the decision to the extent it allowed wages for the period from 25-9-1982 to 16-5-1983 to the appellant. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The facts are that the allegation made against the appellant was that Rs,74 were charged from a person as fare for monthly season ticket from Gujranwala Cantt. To Lahore but in the record Rs,11 only were entered showing that the ticket was issued for travelling between Gujranwala Cantt. And Gujranwala Town. The appellant was charge-sheeted and he submitted reply to the same. The appellant was brought under suspension also. He was terminated from service but on appeal the punishment was converted into W.I.P. For three years. The appellant challenged the said order in his grievance petition but the same was dismissed by the learned lower Court as time-barred. In appeal it was held that the grievance notice so far as it related to the punishment of W.I.P. Was time-barred but the grievance notice with regard to the wages for the period the appellant had remained out of service and for the period of suspension was based upon separate order and could not be time-barred from the date on which punishment of W.I.P. Was awarded. The case, therefore, was remanded for decision of the point whether the appellant was entitled to the wages for the period from 25-9-1982 to 16-5-1983 and for the remaining period of suspension for the months of July and August, 1982.
3. The learned lower Court has now directed the respondent to pay to the appellant wages for the period from 25-9-1982 to 16-5-1983 but has held that he is not entitled to the remaining half pay for the months of July and August, 1982 for which he remained suspended. No reason has been given for disallowing wages for the said period. Since the order of termination from service was withdrawn by the respondent himself, the appellant has been rightly awarded wages for the said period. When the respondent had himself held that the punishment of removal from service was not justified, there appears to be no reason why the appellant should not have been allowed wages for the period for which he could not render service due to the order which had been withdrawn. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to lead any convincing arguments for challenging this part of the decision of the learned lower Court. I, therefore, uphold the decision to this extent and dismiss the appeal of the respondent.
4. So far as the wages for the period of suspension are concerned, it was the duty of the respondent to decide at the time of putting an end to the order of suspension whether the appellant was or was not entitled to the remaining wages of the said period. In cases where the employee is not acquitted of the charge and some punishment is awarded, it is up to the employer to decide whether the employee is entitled to the wages for the suspension period. I, therefore, partly accepting the appeal of the appellant, direct the respondent to decide whether the appellant is or is not entitled to the remaining wages for the period of suspension.