1. DECISION Mr. Nanji for the appellant and Mr. Raza Ali for the respondent. The impugned Award dated the 11th of January, 1974, whereby the learned Court had ordered the re-instatement of the respondent with full back benefits on two-fold grounds namely that the Enquiry Report had not been supplied to the respondent and that he was not given second show-cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service. On these grounds the leirned Court granted back benefits on re-instatement. He should have left the question of back benefits to the result of the final decision. If the final decision is in favour of the respondent he would be entitled to back benefits.
2. The learned Court should have only granted some cost to compensate the respondent. In these circumstances I would modify the Award to this extent that the res-"4 pondent be re-instated but would not be entitled to any back benefits which would depend on the result of the final decision by the Management. If the defects have been removed, that is, the Enquiry Report had been supplied and he is given a second show-cause notice. In this case Mr. Nanji states that the Enquiry Report had already been supplied to the respondent. It would, therefore, only be necessary to give second show-cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service or for any appropriate action. The appellant to pay Rs, I0O as cost to Mr. Raza Ali, within a week.