DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VII, dated 24-5-1989, whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was admittedly appointed as Signaller on 16-8- 1974. He was arrested in a criminal case of theft and, therefore, he was put under suspension on 13- 11-1982. He is alleged to have left headquarter without permission from 25-7-1985 for which the Station Master, Larkana, where appellant was posted at the relevant time, made a report to Divisional Personnel Officer. A charge-sheet was framed against the appellant dated 17-10-1985 and sent to him by registered post A/D which was returned undelivered, therefore, notices against him were published in the Daily Newspapers `JASARAT' and MASHRIQ' of 30th and 31st January, 1986.
As the appellant failed to reply to the 'show-cause notice' the appellant was dismissed from service without further enquiry vide order, dated 16-7-1986, which is also alleged to have been sent to him through registered post but which the appellant denies to have received and states that he received photostat copy of the same on 17-12-1986. The appellant, therefore, filed Departmental Appeal in January, 1987 which was dismissed as time-barred on 17-3-1987. Aggrieved by this order the appellant gave grievance notice on 6-4-1987 and thereafter filed grievance petition.
3. The main objection of the learned representative for the appellant is, that the appellant has been dismissed from service without being given opportunity of being heard. It is submitted by Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents, that the notice was sent by registered post on the address of the appellant as entered in his Service Book. The address on the registered cover shows him as resident of House No, 366-Sita Road, Tehsil Nathan Shah District Dadu, whereas the appellant alleges to have given his address of Karachi. Admittedly neither the 'Service Book' has been produced to show as to what address of the appellant was entered therein, nor has the witness of the respondents given evidence to this effect. Furthermore, respondent's witness has admitted that the appellant did appear before the Station Master on 21-11-1987 and he used to receive his pay right up to 2-7-1986. This admission clearly shows, that the appellant was not unavailable to the respondent who could have served the charge-sheet upon him. The non- service of the charge-sheet upon the appellant appears to be deliberate and therefore any order passed without service of charge-sheet, which deprived the. Appellant of showing cause against his removal, would be nullity and illegal in the eyes of law.
4. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents, has raised objection that the grievance petition is time-barred as the dismissal order was passed on 16-7-1986 whereas grievance notice was served on 6-4-1987. The evidence of the appellant shows that he did not received the dismissal order which allegedly was sent to him by registered post but he got photostat copy on 17-12-1986, whereafter he filed appeal which was dismissed on 17-3-1986. There is no evidence to the contrary. Neither any A/D receipt is produced to show service of dismissal order by registered post upon the appellant nor any 'postman' has been examined to that effect.
Admittedly under the Rules the appellant has right of Departmental Appeal, which he preferred and which was dismissed in March, 1987. As such cause of action would be deemed to have arisen to him in March, 1987. As such grievance notice as well as the grievance petition was within time.
5. For the aforesaid reasons I set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and order the reinstatement of the appellant. The appellant has been reinstated on technical ground.. There is no evidence on the record to show C whether during the period of removal from service he was sitting unemployed or was gainfully employed. Under the circumstances I award him fifty per cent back benefits from the date of removal from service.
6. Order to be implemented within a month.