This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi, dated February 26, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant for re-instatement and back benefits. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was employed as Marketing Supervisor on 7th June 1968 on a salary of Rs.175-00 per month. After some time, he was transferred to the Factory in the Laboratory. He was suspended on 27th November 1968 allegedly on the ground that he had committed embezzlement of a sutra of R9. 1,237-00. Which he had to collect from Shop Boys and deposit the same. In the meantime, It appears that the Appellant was called upon to deposit the money which he did.
3. The admitted position is that the appellant was not charged-sheeted or called upon to explain the charge of misconduct levelled against him. During the period of his suspension, it appears froth the record of the east he was called upon by the Company several times to report. The Appellant however did not report. The case of the appellant is that whenever he eras called upon he did report.
4. Mr. A. Majid the learned Representative for the appellant, candidly conceded that the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, do not apply as the Karachi Milk Supply Scheme is run under the authority of the Provincial Govern-- ment. He, however, contended that under the terms of Statutory Ruses, the Appellant was entitled to #J3rd of his pay during the period that he was Order suspension. In this connection, Mr. Majeed also drew my attention so the order suspending him from service. The order specifically mentions that the Appellant will be paid 1/3rd of his pay during the period of his suspension. The admitted position is that the appellant was not paid any amount during the period of his suspension. Mr. Diwan Rashid Ahmad, the learned Representative for the respondent, contended that the Respondent was not liable to pay any money during the period that the appellant was under suspension, as he did not report whenever he was called upon. Considering for the make of arguments that the appellant did not report when he was called upon by the Respondent there is nothing in the Suspension Order and no provision of law was shown to me under which the Department could deprive the appellant of his pay for the period that he was under suspension. It was open to the respondent to charge-sheet him or taker such action as they deemed necessary, but it could not keep the appellant under suspension for an a definite period and deprive trim of a part oil his pay.
5. The question now is of the period for which the Respondent has to pay 1/3rd of the salary of the appellant. The appellant, admittedly, was suspended with effect from 28th November 1968. He was dismissed from service in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service on 30th June 1970, with retrospective effect, from 28th November 1968. I am of the view that the respondent could not dismiss the Appellant with retrospective effect so as to deprive him of his 1/3rd pay to which he was entitled. I would hold that the appellant was dismissed from service on~ 30th June 1970 in terms of his employment. He would be deemed to have remained under suspension up to 30th June 1970. The appellant, therefore, would be or-titled to 1/3rd of his pay I e. 1/3rd of Rs. 17j.00 per month from 28th November 1968 to 30th June 1970. This amount should be paid to the appellant within one month.