RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.--The General Manager, National Radio Telecommunication Corporation, Abbottabad, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 23-10-1989, accepting the writ petition filed by Muhammad Aslam, respondent, setting aside the orders of the two Labour Courts below and re-instating the said respondent in the petitioner-Corporation's service with complete back benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner-Corporation is that Muhammad Aslam, respondent, wanted to purchase 2 sheets of chip-board for his personal consumption, which permission having been granted, he attempted to secure 2 iron gates on the basis of a gate pass secured by him from the sales office, when he was detected at the main gate by the security staff on duty. The respondent was issued a show-cause notice on 11-8-1985, to which he submitted his reply on 13-8-1985, wherein he did not deny being in possession of the iron gate, but stated that he was under the impression that his gate pass was for the same items as were mentioned therein. He begged forgiveness and pleaded mistake on account of illiteracy. After proper departmental inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service on 18-8-1985. On 21-8-1985 the respondent came to the petitioner Corporation---s office and applied for clearance. Of his entire service dues, whereupon his salary, provident fund, customary bonus and encashment of privilege leave were all secured by him. It is, therefore, submitted that the findings of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the respondent, notwithstanding his own voluntary conduct of claiming and receiving all his dues by way of full satisfaction from the petitioner-Corporation, was still entitled to be reinstated, is based on an erroneous view of the law and is against the principle already laid down by various High Courts in the said connection. In this connection the learned Deputy Attorney-General has cited Mirza Majeed Baig etc. v. M/s. Futehally Chemicals Ltd. Karachi 1973 PLC 297, Rehman v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi etc. 1983 PLC 210 and Muhammad Parvaiz v. M/s. Exon Chemicals (Pak.) Ltd. 1984 PLC 786.
3. It appears that after having secured all his dues, the respondent resorted to the Labour Court for reinstatement, which was disallowed as the respondent had through his own application claimed and received his dues without protest, even though otherwise the respondent was entitled to reinstatement. The N.--W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal also took the same view in dismissing the appeal of the respondent. However, the Peshawar High Court, following Climax Engineering Company Ltd., Gujranwala v. Shabbir Ahmad and another 1985 PLC 400, took a different view. The submissions of the learned Deputy Attorney-General require examination. Leave is granted to consider this matter and also to consider the question whether the respondent's dismissal from service was not for serious reasons, as against the findings of the lower Courts below that the charge against the respondent was baseless and for some petty matter. The appeal shall be heard on the basis of the present record. Parties are at liberty to file such further documents as they consider fit and proper for the full and final disposal of the: appeal. It is submitted that the respondent has been taken back in service. The payment of back benefits to him shall therefore remain suspended, pending the final disposal of the appeal.