DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated August 28, 1972, whereby the learned Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, ordered the respondent to be re-instated with full back benefits and continuity in service. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The respondent Mst. Karim-un-Nisa was employed as a Winder in the factory of the appellant. The case of the respondent was that her services were illegally terminated without calling upon her to show cause. On the other hand, the case of the appellant was that the respondent was a habitual absentee from duty, so much so that in the year 1970 she came to work only for 42 days. The Fitness Certificate produced by the respondent itself, it was contended, would show that she was under medical treatment till 6th November 1970. She was, on submitting Medical Certificate, taken on duty, but she again absented herself with the result that her servcies were terminated with effect from 14th December 1970.
3. The learned Chairman of the Labour Court came to the conclusion that no charge-sheet was given to the applicant (respondent before me), much less an enquiry was held against her. Moreover, the services of the respondent were terminated without the sanction of the Director, On these two grounds the learned Court came to the conclusion that the removal of the respondent from service was illegal and ordered her re-instatement with full back benefits and continuity in service.
4. The conclusion of the learned Court that no charge sheet was served on the respondent and that the sanction of the Director to terminate her services was not obtained must be maintained. The only point that requires consideration is as to whether in the circumstances of the present case when the re-instatement was ordreed because of a defect in the order terminating the services of the respondent for want of due enquiry and sanction of the Director to terminate the services of the respondent, the order as regards back benefits would be justified. The appellant has every right to charge-sheet the respondent for the alleged misconduct.
If the appellant so desires to charge sheet the respondent and the respondent is able to establish that she was not guilty of any misconduct, she would be entitled to back benefits. On the other hand, if on a Domestic Enquiry it is found that she was guilty of misconduct, she would be not entitled to any back benefits. In the circumstances of the present case, however, instead of ordering back benefits, I would order the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 400 as costs to the respondent. 4)3 5. In the result, the respondent is re-instated without any back benefits. If the appellant does not charge-sheet her within two weeks it would be taken that she had not committed any misconduct and would be entitled to back benefits and all other emoluments that may arise from her re-instatement from the date that she was dismissed from service. The cost to be paid within two weeks.