DECISION JUSTICE (RETD) AHMED ALI U. QURESHI J:- This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, VIth Sind Labour Court at Hyderabad, dated 17.10.1989, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed.
2. I have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaque, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was a workman employed by the appellants. He is alleged to have remained unauthorisedly absent from 3-2-1988. He was charge sheeted on 18.02.1988. The respondent however alleged that he was verbally removed from service. The appellants on the other hand alleged that they have not removed respondent from service but intend to hold an enquiry against the respondent on the charge sheet given to him by the appellants. The respondent has also admitted that he was asked to resume duty on 16.4.1988 but he was refused admission and was verbally removed from service. After serving grievance notice the respondent filed grievance petition.
4. The main ground on which the application was allowed by the learned Presiding Officer was that the witness of the appellants did not attended for cross examination and therefore the case of the respondent stood un-rebutted. As the appellant himself admits, that he has not removed respondent from service the order of the learned Labour Court reinstating him in sendee does not require any interference. Admittedly no enquiry has yet been held as such reinstatement in service of the respondent would not debar the appellants from holding enquiry on the charge sheet issued by them to the respondent.
5. With the above observation the appeal is dismissed, however, the payment of back benefits to the respondent would depend upon the result of enquiry, which the appellants arc directed to complete within three months.