DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 30-8-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Wahid Bux, learned Representative for the appellant and Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The case appears to have a long and chequered history. It appears that the appellant was first retrenched and then ordered to be reinstated and was posted at Sukkur on 1-11-1980. He, however, did not report at Sukkur, therefore, he was charge-sheeted for remaining absent for more than 10 days by absentee notice, dated 25-11-1980. The appellant challenged his transfer order by filing a petition in the Labour Court, vide Grievance Application No,285/80. It appears that some stay orders were issued in that grievance application, which were vacated in revision application by this Tribunal vide orders, dated 16-4-1981. The respondents in the meantime, issued termination orders of services of the appellant on 16-5-1981 against which also, he filed grievance petition No, 50/81.
On 18-7-1981 Mr. Raes Mushtaq, learned counsel for the respondents filed a statement before the Labour Court stating therein that order of dismissal, dated 16-5-1981 had been re-called by the respondents on 24-5-1981. The appellant alleges that thereafter he submitted his duty report; whereas according to the respondents he did not resume duties. The appellant filed application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the learned Authority under the said Act, which was eventually allowed, but, the order was not set aside by the learned Labour Court in appeal. However, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the appellant also filed an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the learned Labour Court. In those proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the witness of the respondents produced an order purporting to have been passed on 27-2- 1982, wherein the appellant had been again dismissed from service. The appellant, therefore, after serving the grievance notice upon the respondents, filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court challenging this order of dismissal, dated 27-2-1982. This grievance petition was resisted by the respondents on the ground that it was time-barred. The objection of the respondents was accepted by the learned Labour Court which dismissed the grievance application of the appellant as time-barred. In appeal, this Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Labour Court. The appellant, thereafter filed Constitution Petition No, D-97 of 1986, which was decided by learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Karachi, on 1412-1988, wherein it was held that the order of termination had not been proved to have been served upon the appellant, therefore, the orders of the learned Labour Court and this Tribunal holding the grievance application to be time-barred were without lawful authority. Thereafter, the grievance petition proceeded before the learned Labour Court and was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Admittedly, only one enquiry was held as the result of the charge-sheet, dated 25-11-1980 in which the order of dismissal of the appellant, dated 16-5-1981 was passed and which was recalled by the respondents on 24-5-1981. The' contentions of Mr. Racs Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the respondents is that the order of dismissal was recalled because of the operation of the stay order, passed by the learned Labour Court. From the facts recounted above it would be clear that the stay order, if any, had been vacated by this Tribunal in Revision Application on 16-4-1981 and, therefore, the order of dismissal, dated 16-5-1981 cannot be said to have been passed during the pendency of the stay orders. The proceedings initiated by the charge-sheet, dated 25-11-1980 came to final end by the re-calling of order of dismissal by the respondents, on 24-5-1981.
Therefore, no further order of dismissal could have been legally passed by the respondents on the basis of those proceedings on 27-2-1982.
4. Mr. Raes Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the respondents contends that the appellant has himself admitted that even after dismissal of his grievance application challenging his transfer, before the learned Labour Court, he did not report for duty at Sukkur. Therefore, admittedly, he remained absent from duty. Be that as it may, if the appellant had still remained absent, he had committed fresh miseonduct for which he could have been charge-sheeted again. His admission, if any, in the present proceedings before the learned Labour Court, would not absolve the respondents from their duty to hold a fresh enquiry on this fresh alleged misconduct of the appellant in accordance with the provision of Standing Order 15(4). The order of dismissal, dated 27-2-1982, therefore, is not tenable under Law as it is violative of the aforesaid Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
5. The next question that requires consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to any back benefits. No doubt, a long period had passed viz., about more than 8 years, but, for this delay, the appellant alone cannot be held responsible. He had also spent a lot during this period on the prolonged litigation. However, during this period, he had not done any work for the respondents.
The respondents alleges that the appellant was running Barbar shop, which is denied by the appellant and it does not appear to be substantiated by some authentic proof. Keeping in view of all the above circumstances, I set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and order of dismissal of the appellant, dated 27-2-1982 and order his reinstatement in service with 50% (fifty per cent) back benefits. The orders to be implemented within 2 months. The respondents would be at liberty to hold fresh enquiry against the appellant if he still persists to remain absent after reinstatement.