DECISION The circumstances in which this appeal from the order of the Sindh Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, reinstating the petitioner in service has arisen, are as follows:
2. The respondent was posted as a Storekeeper at Bulk Depot, Jacobabad from 18-8-1981 to 16-10- 1984, where after he was transferred to Sukkur. He was served with a `charge-sheet' after nearly two years which was to the effect that on the verification of the stocks with the records it was found that he had misappropriated stocks of Urea and other items to the tune of Rs.7,60,897.60.
3. There was some sort of an Enquiry by a `Board' but the respondent was never called to appear before the same. He, however, came to be dismissed from service on 31-7-1988.
4. The respondent had preferred a Departmental Appeal which came to be dismissed and it was thereafter that he had filed the petition.
5. In the Reply Statement inter alia there was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the petitioner was governed by the terms and conditions of Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 as adopted by the respondents.
6. The petitioner was his own witness, while Gordhan Das, District Agricultural Supply Officer, SASO, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
7, The Labour Court found that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of the standing Orders Ordinance and his dismissal was wrongful. He therefore allowed the petition.
8. The challenge to the jurisdiction was also taken up here. In appeal but all that Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon had to say was that the judgment of the Division Bench in which the employees of SASO were found entitled to seek remedies before the Labour Courts had been admitted for hearing by the Supreme Court. That quality and substance of the challenge speaks for itself.
9. It is also noticeable that the petitioner had handed over the charge in 1984, and given relieving order by the District Agricultural Supply Officer, Jacobabad, which was in the following words:-- "Mr. Asghar Ali, Storekeeper is hereby, relieved today the 16th of October, 1984 (A/N) in compliance to the Deputy Director, Agricultural Supplies, SASO, Sukkur, letter---------------------. Nothing outstanding against the Official."
10. It was nearly two years after the respondent was away from the scene that he was served with the charge-sheet. What is more astonishing is, he was never summoned to face the proceedings. It appears that a Board which had been constituted had verified the stock and the registers. It did not go beyond this Otherwise too, charge-sheet had been issued not only to respondent alone, but to two other persons, one of whom was M. Ibrahim who had taken over the charge from the appellant.
11. In the face of all this, the dismissal of the respondent from his. Job seems to be rather surprising.
12. The Labour Court had allowed the petition as prayed and one of the reliefs sought was for back benefits. That would be simply untenable.
13. The petition was allowed on technical grounds and there was enough material to show that all was not well with the working of the department. There were matters in which some investigation was still going on. The authorities were indifferent to the sorry state of affairs. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to any back benefits. (See Muhammad Bashir v.
Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1991 SCM R 2087).
14. With this modification the appeal stands dismissed Orders accordingly.