DECISION ' These two appeals are directed against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,I, Karachi, dated 23-2-1989 whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the workman Sardar Iqbal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) and ordered his reinstatement in service but without back benefits. The Karachi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) filed Appeal No, KAR-224/89, against the order of reinstatement of the respondent, whereas the respondent filed Appeal No, KAR-225/89, against the order denying him back benefits.
I will dispose of both the appeals by the single decision.
2. Admittedly the respondent was workman working with the appellants. He proceeded on leave from 15-4-1986 to 15-5-1986. His case is that because he fell ill, therefore, he sent an application for extension of leave to which he received no reply. He states to have received two letters on 6-8- 1986. Under one letter dated 24-7-1986 he was directed to appear before the enquiry officer on 31- 7-1986, while the second letter was show-cause notice as to why he should not be removed from service. The respondent further alleges that when he reported to resume duty on 19-8-1986 alongwith medical certificate, he was informed that he had been dismissed from his service. After serving grievance notice, the respondent filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, which was resisted by the appellants on the ground that respondent remained absent without leave for more than 10 days for which he had been sent a notice to produce the medical certificate and also charge-sheet by registered post on his last known address. It is further alleged that respondent was dismissed from service after domestic enquiry.
3. I have heard Mr. Gul Mohammad Soomro, representative for the appellants and Mr. Latif Saghar, Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The main ground on which the grievance petition was allowed by the learned Presiding Officer, was that no fair, legal and proper enquiry was held against the respondent.
5. Admittedly the letter asking the respondent to produce the medical certificate before the question of leave could be granted and the charge-sheet were sent by registered post to the respondent and were received back undelivered with the endorsement that the addressee could not be traced without his father's name. Admittedly the address on these postal covers did not bear the father's name of the respondent. Admittedly the other two letters, as pointed' above were received by the respondent on 6-8-1986 also sent on the same address without his father's name.
However, that could not raise any presumption nor is it so specifically pleaded, that the respondent had refused to accept the first mentioned letter of the appellants or the charge-sheet. There is no evidence of the Postman to prove such refusal. The copies of the acknowledgement receipts produced by the respondent clearly show, that the notice of the enquiry was received by the respondent on 6-8-1986, whereas the enquiry was held on 31-7-1986. This enquiry therefore, cannot be said to have been held ex parte after due notice to the respondent where he intentionally failed to participate in enquiry. Such enquiry has rightly been considered to be unfair and illegal by the learned Labour Court. Under the circumstances the order of the learned Labour Court directing the reinstatement of the respondent is unexceptionable.
6. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro contends, that the medical certificate subsequently produced by the respondent was forged. However, he has not been charge-sheeted or punished for producing forged medical certificate. Therefore, this contention has got no value.
7. The learned Labour Court has disallowed back benefits on the ground, that the respondent had not specifically stated in affidavit in-evidence that he was not gainfully employed. There also appears no evidence to show, that he was gainfully employed. The order of the dismissal had been held to be illegal. Under the circumstances, I will allow him 30% back benefits.
8. In view of the above discussions, the Appeal No, KAR-224/89 is dismissed, whereas the Appeal No, KAR-225/89 is partly allowed to the extent that the respondent is allowed 30% back benefits.
Orders be complied with within one month.