DECISION This is an appeal under section 37(C) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the order of the Labour Court re-instating the respondent to service with full back benefits.
2. The respondent was in the service of the appellant. He was found having misappropriated tram fare received from some lady passengers on two occasions on 26-6-72 and 19-7-72 He was charge- sheeted and enquiry was held. He was found guilty and, therefore, dismissed from service. He approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The learned Court on the assessment of the evidence on merits found that the charge was not established and the respondent was victimized for Trade Union activities. He, therefore, set aside the dismissal and ordered re- insatement. Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed.
3. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was time-barred as it was filed beyond the period of 15 days. This objection is clearly misconceived as according to law, which stood at the time when the proceedings' were instituted, the period for filing the appeal against the decision of Labour Court was one month and not 15 days. It may be pointed out that section 25-A was added to I.R.O, conferring jurisdiction upon the Labour Court to decide the individual grievances and against that decision the appeal had been filed but subsequently by an amendment the jurisdiction of hearing individual grievances under section 25-\ was conferred upon the Junior Labour Courts and against their orders the appeal lies to the Labour Courts and it has to be filed within 15 days. The period of limitation for filing appeal to this Tribunal against the order of the Labour Court cannot be said to have been affected.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it was .domestic enquiry which could not be assessed on merits by the Labour Court but what was required was to be seen whether the procedure was followed and whether the respondent was afforded full opportunity to defend himself or not. In this connection he is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court reported' m 1975 SCMR 46. It has not been contended on behalf of the respondent that the procedure was not followed but what he contended is that two defence witnesses were cited and out of them one was sent on leave by the Management to deprive the appellant to defend himself. There is no force in this contention. There is nothing on record to show that the witness was sent on leave by the Management in order to deny the opportunity of defence to the respondent. There is also nothing on record to show that the respondent had insisted for his evidence and his request was refused. No other point was agitated before me.
5. In the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the Labour Court is set aside.