The appeals captioned above emerge from the decision dated 21-2-1989 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, IX, Multan whereby Bashir Ahmed (hereinafter called as the respondent) has been directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back benefits. The respondent has by his appeal claimed full back benefits whereas the District Manager, P.R.T.C.
(Inter City) Depot, Sahiwal, present, D.M. P.R.T.C. Garden Town (Inter City) Depot, Lahore (hereinafter described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondent. Since both the appeals emerge from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was recruited as driver and was confirmed. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Yard Master and on the allegation that he did not produce any driving licence, he was removed from service. He is alleged to have been asked to produce his driving licence which he fail d but when clarification from the Police Department was made a report was received that it was a Motor Cycle licence and not a driving licence of heavy duty. Nei her any show-cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was held before removing him from service.
The case of the respondent is that he had a driving licence which he had delivered to the department on its asking and that this was wrong that he had not produced any driving licence.
3. Since no show-cause notice for termination of services was issued to the respondent, he was condemned unheard. If this had been done, he may have been able to prove that he had delivered the licence to the P.R.T.C. authorities on demand or would have produced copy of the record of the Licensing Authority to show that the report of the police was not against him. The police report Exh.
P-11 is to the effect that a Motor Cycle driving licence had been issued to one Muhammad Ashraf.
The name of the respondent is Bashir Ahmad and not Muhammad Ashraf. Apart from it, it was not proved before the learned lower Court that the copy of the driving licence sent to the police for verification belonged to the respondent. Since it was in the name of Muhammad Ashraf, it was not the one issued to the respondent. So, the grievance petition of the respondent has been rightly accepted by the learned lower Court.
4. Back benefits have been rightly allowed to the respondent at 50%. He has claimed full back benefits in his appeal but since admittedly he had been earning Rs,400 per month, he has been rightly allowed 50% hack benefits.
5. As a result of the observations made above, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.