1. DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Sindh Labour Court VII at Sukkur dated 3-9-1989 whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed.
2. ' The facts of the case are that the respondent admittedly is a workman and was employed by the appellants. For a certain act of misconduct he was allegedly prosecuted under sections 109, 409, 420, 468 and 34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 before Special Judge Anti-Corruption and therefore he was suspended in 1986. Another case under Customs Act was also filed against the respondent before learned Special Judge Customs. The learned Labour Court Judge allowed grievance petition on the ground that there was no documentary proof to show that criminal case was pending against the respondent nor the appellants were able to show the powers, under which they could put the respondent under suspension for indefinite period.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants admitted that in the case under Anti-Corruption Act the respondent has been acquitted, but they have not received the copy of the order, but the case under Customs Act is still pending. The appellants have filed a copy of judgment of High Court of Balochistan and Quetta as Annexure-C/1 which shows that the case against the respondent under the Customs Act had been disposed of by the Customs Court and record was called by the High'
4. Court in exercise of its suo motu revision power. However, after considering the legal position, the learned Judge of the Balochistan High Court came to the conclusion, that as Special Appellate Court under Customs Act, he did not have powers of suo motu revision and therefore he discharged the notices issued against the respondent and others. This would clearly show that no case under Customs Act is presently pending against the respondent.
5. ' With regard to the case under Anti-Corruption Act either the respondent has been acquitted as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant or as observed by the learned Labour Court, there is no evidence on record to show that such case is still pending before the Special Judge.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has also not been able to show any provision of the rules or law under which they could keep the respondent I suspended.
7. ' The respondent being a workman has secured right to remain on duty. This indefinite suspension of more than three years is neither warranted by rules or law nor by the principle of natural justice.
8. It amounts to punishing a person, without even giving him an opportunity of being heard.
9. ' For the aforesaid reason I find no merits in this appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.