' The petitioner/Punjab Road Transport Corporation through this Constitutional petition has prayed for quashment of order dated 20-1-1971 passed by respondent No, 1.
2. The relevant facts are that respondent No, 3 was serving as a Cleaner with the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said respondent for misconduct and as a result thereof he was dismissed from service. The respondent impugned this order through an application under section 38 of West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. The petitioner contested this petition and raised a preliminary objection to its competency. The objection was upheld and the petition was dismissed by respondent No, 2 vide order dated 4-4-1970. The respondent No, 3 impugned this order through an appeal before respondent No, 1, who accepted the same vide order dated 20-1-1971 and reinstated respondent No, 3 with full back benefits. The petitioner has now challenged this order of respondent No, 1 through this Constitutional petition.
3. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No, 3 has appeared through counsel and contested the petition while respondents Nos.
1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the application of section 38 of West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 was not competent and the same was rightly dismissed by respondent No,
2. It is added that there is no provision in the rules of the petitioner as to supply of the copy of enquiry report, therefore, respondent No, 1 was not justified to reverse the finding of respondent No, 2 on merits.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No, 3 has argued that the non-supply of copy of enquiry report vitiated the disciplinary proceedings as it prejudiced the right of hearing. It is added that the absence of provision is of no consequence because this is requirement of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel in this behalf referred to para. 6 of the order of respondent No, 1.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the parties submitted that respondent No, 3 retired from service long back after his reinstatement in service as that part of the order was not suspended by this Court. In this view of the matter I need not record any findings on the preliminary objection as to the competency of the application under section 38. The only question which requires determination is now whether respondent No, 3 was entitled to benefits or not. It is clear from the record that the order of dismissal of the said respondent from service has not been set aside on merits and on the other hand it has only been set aside on the invocation of the principles of natural justice, therefore, the said respondent was not entitled to back benefits for the period he did not serve the petitioner. The principles of natural justice were available to both sides, therefore, respondent No, 3 was not entitled to any back benefits.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is partially allowed. The result is that order as to the reinstatement is upheld while the remaining order as to the back benefits is declared illegal and hereby set aside. There is no order as to costs.