DECISION This is an appel against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi, dated July 7, 1973, whereby the leamed Labour Court ordered the appellant to be re- instated, but refused to grant any back benefits. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned Representative for the appellant, has filed the appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the appellant was entitled to back benefits. I have heard the learned Representatives for the parties. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was employed as a Mechanic in the Pakistan Progressive Cement Industries Limited. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct and dismissed from service on 13th March, 1967. He made an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance of 1959) on 6th April 1967. An enquiry was held and the appellant was found guilty and was dismissed from service from 13th March 1967.
3. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned Representative for the appellant, is right in contending that the ground on which the back benefits have been refused is not a good ground in law. The learned Labour Court observed, in this connection, as under :-- "As far as the back benefits are concerned the applicant was dismissed on 13-3-1967, more than six years back. Meanwhile the Management had been taken over by the Government and hence it would be a great hardship for the new Management to be burdened with this claim. Consequently I disallow back benefits to the applicant."
4. This is no doubt no ground, either in equity or in law, to refuse back benefits. As to whether a person should be granted back benefits or not, is a question of discretion. In the present case, the application under section 31 of the Ordinance of 1959, was made on 6th April 1967 and the impugned order was passed almost after six years of time. The result of this long delay in giving an award was that the evidence that may be available for holding a fresh enquiry may not be available to the Management. In fact, Mr. Lodhi himself contended that the evidence will not be available to the Management to support the charge-sheet. In these circumstances, the Court acted rightly in debarring the respondent Management on the one hand5 from holding a fresh enquiry and on the other hand depriving the appellant) from getting back benefits. The Court may have thought that no useful purpose can be served by ordering fresh enquiry, lt will be merely a farce, if the Management may hold fresh enquiry and dismiss the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant, who was a Mechanic would not have remained idle for all these years. He must have been employed somewhere or other. In these circumstances, I would maintain the order of the learned Labour Court in refusing to grant back benefits, but in the interest of justice however, I would order that the appellant should get the grade to which he may havei been entitled had he continued in service from the date that he was employedjc as a Machanic. The appellant to get the pay of the grade to which he is! entitled on the date that the was ordered to be re-instated in service from July 7, 1973. The order of the learned Labour Ccurt is modified to this extent only.