The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 22-1-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits, leaving the question of back benefits to be determined by the concerned Railways authority.
2. The respondent was convicted and sentenced to S.I. till the rising of the Court and fined Rs,100 on the allegation of gambling. The learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent only on the ground that he was dismissed by an incompetent authority. The respondent produced dismimal order Exh. P.7, which was passed by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Lahore. The order reads as under:-- "As a result of conviction by the First Class Magistrate, inter alia vide judgment dated 7-8-1985, Mr. Muhammad Aslam son of Faqir Muhammad, P/Man is hereby dismissed from service with immediate effect.
The debits, if any, against him should be intimated to this office."
Learned counsel for the appellants has made reference to Exh. R-6, which is a short order reading as under:-- "Since it is obligatory, accused be dismissed from service.
(Sd.) D.T.O." On the basis of this order, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned lower Court has wrongly decided that an incompetent authority had removed the respondent from service. According to the learned counsel, Exh. P-7 is only an intimation of dismissal to the respondent but is not in itself an order of dismissal. The argument has no force. It is clear from the order of dismissal quoted above that the Assistant Personnel Officer dismissed the respondent by the said order. The words 'hereby dismissed' clearly show that the respondent was dismissed vide Order Exh. P-7 passed by the Assistant Personnel Officer. Exh.R-6 is not reliable; firstly, because it is contradictory to Exh. P-7 and secondly, that it does not anywhere bear the signatures of the respondent, so it could be prepared at any time afterwards. If Exh. R-6 had been passed prior to Exh. P-7, in the latter order reference would have been made to the former and instead of saying that the respondent was hereby dismissed from service, it would have been said that the D.T.O. had considered the matter and had decided to dismiss the respondent. It appears that after an objection was taken by the respondent about the competency of the Assistant Personnel Officer, the order Exh. R-6 was obtained from the D.T.O. The respondent, therefore, has been rightly directed to be reinstated in service by the learned lower Court.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.