' Respondent No,1 was dismissed from service. He challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court in a petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Learned Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties, inter alia, found that the enquiry held by the employer into the charges brought against the respondent was defective in so far as the prosecutor was not allowed to be cross-examined despite the request made by the representative of the respondent.
The Labour Court, therefore, vide its order dated 18-10-1986 accepted the grievance petition and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with back benefits.
2. Petitioner preferred an appeal but with no better result as the learned Labour Appellate Court upheld the finding of Labour Court that the enquiry held by the management was defective.
Appeal of the petitioner was accordingly dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 19-10-1986. Hence this Constitutional petition in this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties . The only point argued by learned . Counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry held against the respondent having been found to be defective, the petitioner should have been allowed to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/employee states that the respondent is prepared to face a fresh enquiry and he has no objection if the writ petition is allowed with permission to the petitioner to hold a fresh inquiry against the respondent. Petitioner should however be directed to complete the enquiry by 31st July, 1991 failing which it shall pay back benefits to respondent No,1 forthwith.
This is acceptable to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In view of the aforenoted statement of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioner is permitted to hold a fresh enquiry into the charges levelled against the respondent/employee. It is further directed that the petitioner shall finalize the enquiry by 31st July, 1991 and the payment of back benefits to the respondent shall, of course, be dependent upon the result of the enquiry. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not hold the enquiry at all or if initiated, the enquiry is not completed/finalized by 31st July, 1991, the petitioner shall pay all the back benefits to respondent No,1 soon thereafter. Since the writ petition has been disposed of with the agreement of both the parties, there will be no order as to costs.