DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Labour Court, Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated February 5, 1973, whereby the learned presiding Officer ordered the re-instatement of the respondent with full back benefits, in an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969, (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The facts giving also to the present appeal briefly put are these.
2. The respondent was employed as a Weaver on a salary of Rs. 167.00 per month. The application under section 34 of the Ordinance does not disclose as to when his services were terminated. The respondent, however, stated in Paragraph 7, of his application before the learned Labour Court that he bad made an application to the Labour Officer on 30th October 1970, protesting against the illegal termination of his service, for re-instatement. . I Paragraph 8, the Respondent stated is under: "That the services of the Applicant have been dismissed in violation of the provisions of Ordinance VI, 1968 and in this way certain rights of the applicant guaranteed and secured by the said Ordinance were injured by the Respondent."
3. It is noteworthy that though the Respondent approached the Labour Officer on 30th October 1970, but he filed the application under section 34 of the Ordinance before the learned Labour Court on 21st December 1970.
4. The Respondent filed his affidavit and was cross-examined. Once the other hand, the Appellant filed the affidavit of llyas, who could not be cross-examined. There thus remained only the statement of the Respondent. The learned Labour Court accepting the statement of the Respondent ordered his re-instatement with full back benefits.
5. The only point that hag been urged before me is that in the circumstances of the present case, this Court might consider the question of compensation to be awarded to the Respondent.
6. In the circumstances of the present case, I have, come to the conclusion that it would be penal to award full back benefits to the Respondent. On a number of occasions the Respondent took adjournment on some ground or the other. On some dates, the Court could not proceed with the matter. The case thus remained before the learned Labour Court for two years for no fault of the Appellant. A simple application, giving rise to the present appeal could have been easily disposed of within six months or so. In the circumstances of the present case, and there was no evidence that the Respondent was out of employment, I think ends of justice would be met if I award six months wages to the Respondent. The award of the learned Labour Court is modified to this extent that the Respondent will be re-instated and will get only six months wages.