DECISION This is an|appealjagainst an award of the learned Presiding Officer of the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, whereby the learned Court allowed the application of the respondents and ordered their re instatement with full back benefits and continuity of service on the simple ground that they were not supplied the Report of the Enquiry Officer which caused them a prejudice. The learned Court while coming to this conclusion relied on a case of Lahore High Court in which the same view was taken. I have taken a different view in same case. My confirmed view is and for good reasons that Standing Order 15 (4) does not require second show cause notice. It is only in case where statute gives a right of appeal that Enquiry Officer's Report should be supplied to enable the appellant to know the reasons why the Enquiry Officer has given his findings against him so that he is able to challenge those grounds before the appellate authority. In other cases it is not necessary where the Enquiry Officer has held an impartial enquiry.
2. The learned Representative for the respondent contended that the charges were vague and indefinite. I have gone through the charges. It is not so. They are specific and to the point. I would reproduce the letter of Mr. Taher A. Vasi, dated 24th April 1973 :-- (1) That since 11th instant you have not been strapping the cases continuously, even when you were asked to do so on 20th April 1973 under written instructions by the Management. (2) That on 20th April 1973 at about 4-15 p.m. three letters viz., a letter of inquiry, a letter of suspension and a show-cause notice all dated 20th April 1973 were sought to be delivered to you by Mrs. Irani which you refused to accept. (3) That in spite of the letter of suspension for the period of 4 (four) days, viz., from 21st to 24th instant, you have forcefully entered the premises during the period of suspension and have continued your work in your department viz., K. B. 4 Stores. The charge against the two other respondents are also of similar nature and Specific. It is not necessary to reproduce them as it will increase the volume of the order. If the respondents were prejudiced because of the non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's Report, this point should have been made out in the application before the Court. It is not the case of the respondents that they had asked for the Enquiry Officer's Report but the Management failed to supply the same. I would hold that the non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's B Report in the absence of anything factual did not cause any prejudice to the respondents. In these circumstances I allow the appeal and set aside the award of the learned Labour Court. Appeal allowed.