The judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned to cross-appeals. Muhammad Aslam, a Sorter employed in Railway Mail Service, Multan, Division, Multan was removed from service by the order dated 20th March, 1974 of the Divisional Superintendent, R.M.S., Multan Division under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 on the charges of inefficiency and misconduct. The charges levelled against Muhammad Aslam were:
(1) In efficiency for not doing legitimate duties as required under rules and preparing bogus daily notices as well as proving himself incapable for higher responsibilities, and
(2) Misconduct on account of misbehaving with the Inspector R. M. S. In the presence of the staff.
2. Muhammad Aslam filed a departmental appeal before the goat-Mas--ter General, Central Circle, Lahore who by order dated 7th September 1974 modified the order of the Divisional Superintendent to the extent that the punishment of removal from service was converted into that of compulsory retirement from service. On the basis of the order made by the Post Master-- General. Central Circle, Lahore on the appeal of Muhammad Aslam, the Divisional Superintendent, R.M.S., Multan Division passed an order on 30th October 1974 regarding compulsory retirement of Muhammad Aslam from service with effect from 20th March 1974.
3. On 6th November 1974 Muhammad Aslam filed application before Junior Labour Court, Multan under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking his re-instatement with back benefits. He contended in his application that he was riot afforded with an opportunity to participate in the enquiry as a result of which punishment was inflicted upon him. The enquiry was held ex-parte. He was thus condemned unheard and without having been afforded with an opportunity to defend himself as required under the relevant rules.
4. The Divisional Superintendent, R. M. S., Multan Division resisted the application of Muhammad Aslam and pleaded inter alit that his application was barred by the and that the same was not legally competent. On merits the Divisional Superintendent maintained that Muhammad Aslam himself refused to participate in the enquiry and in the circumstances there was no alternative for the Enquiry Officer but to proceed ex parte.
5. Muhammad Aslam appeared as his own witness before the Junior Labour Court, Multan. He also produced Exh. P.
1. Copy of the order of the removal from service dated 20th March 1974. Exh. P. 2, Copy of letter dated 20th March 1974 requiring him to appear before the Medical Superin--tendent for medical examination, Exh. P.3. Copy of charge-sheet, Exh. P. 4 copy of the reply to charge Exh.
P.5. Copy of acknowledgement receipt of the registered letter Exh. P. 6 copy of the appellate order and Exh. P. 6 copy of the order passed in consequence of the appellate order.
6. In rebuttal no witness has been examined however Exh. R. 1 copy of the enquiry report Exh, R. 2 copy of memorandum of appeal, Exh. R. 3 copy of letter No. 191, dated 23rd February 1974 and Exh. R.
4 copy of report of Abdul Ghafoor Peon have been produced.
7. After considering the parties' evidence the learned Presiding Officer of Junior Labour Court, Multan by his order dated 30th January 1975 concluded that Muhammad Aslam had not been given a reasonable oppor--tunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Enquiry officer were mere conjectures. The appellate authority examined 15 witnesses out of them only one person deposed against Muhammad Aslam. In the light of these observations Muhammad Aslam vas ordered to be re-instated in service but witty regard to intervening period the Junior Labour Court ordered that the cage shall be treated as leave without pay.
8. The Divisional Superintendent, R. M. S., Multan Division, filed appeal challenging the re- instatement of Muhammad Aslam whereas Muhammad Aslam has filed appeal challenging the order of Junior Labour Court, Multan to the extent the intervening period was ordered to be treated as leave without pay.
9. These cross-appeals were originally preferred before the Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Multan but for the reason contained in the report of learned Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Muttan, the Hon'able Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal transferred these appeals to this Court for disposal.
10. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. The evidence by the parties has been minutely considered and analysed. The Divisional Superintendent, R. M. S., Multan Division has raised objection before the learned lower Court as well as in the memorandum of appeal that the application filed by Muhammad Aslam under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was barred by the. This objection appears to be with--out substance inasmuch as Muhammad Aslam feeling aggrieved of the order of the Divisional Superintendent filed departmental appeal permissible under the rules before the Post Master-General, Central Circle, Lahore and the said appellate authority decided the appeal on 27th September, 1974 but the order was communicated to the appellant on 3rd October 1974. The period of limitation is to start from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority to the petitioner. Keeping in view the date of communication of the order of the Appellate Authority to Muhammad A Aslam his application under section 25-A which he filed before the learned lower Court on 6th November 1974 is positively within the. In Muhammad Ramaan v. Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore (1), it was held by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab that where a petitioner filed appeal before competent authority, the cause of action arose on the date of dismissal of appeal and not on date of initial order appealed against.
11. The Divisional Superintendent, R. M. S., Multan Division has also raised an objection that no grievance notice was served by Muhammad Aslam before filing application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and therefore his application was not legally competent. Since Muhammad Aslam by his application snider section 25 had challenged the order of his removal from service by compulsory retirement, his application is to be deemed to be one under subsection (6) of section 25-A for which grievance notice is not a condition precedent.
12. As regards the merits of the case, Muhammad Aslam appearing as his own witness before the learned lower Court stated that charge-sheet was received by him by registered post on 6th March 1974. On the same day the Enquiry Officer bad met him at his residence end informed him of the enquiry proceedings. The appellant bad informed the Enquiry Officer that on account of his illness it was riot possible for him to attend the office. This is common ground between the parties that Muhammad Aslam was on sick leave in those days. The contents of Exh. P. 5 copy of the acknowledgement receipt show that registered letter was received by Muhammad Aslam on 6 March. 1974. The Enquiry Officer had submitted his enquiry report to the Divisional Superintendent, R. M. S., Multan Division, Multan on 6th March 1974 on the same day on which charge-sheet was received by Muhammad Aslam. The testimony of Muhammad Aslam has not been rebutted at all.
It is thus sufficiently established that Muhammad Aslam was conveyed the charge-sheet on the March 1974. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry pro--ceedings on 5th March 1975 and 6th March 1975 and submitted his report holding Muhammad Aslam guilty of the charges on 6th March 1974.
In this manner Muhammad Aslam was not afforded with reasonable opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer as is the intention of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973. A copy of report of Abdul Ghafoor peon (Exh. R. 4) has been produced but no date of this report is given although Abdul Ghafoor made a report to the effect that he took paper to Muhammad Aslam who refused to receive the same on the plea that he was on medical leave.
13. It is also noteworthy that the Post Master-General, Central Circle, Lahore while acting as appellate authority in an unusual manner examined 15 witnesses out of whom only one deposed against Muhammad Aslam but even then the appellate authority awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement of Muhammad Aslam. This shows that the ,appellate authority realized the infirmity in the enquiry proceedings and he made an attempt to make up the deficiency but witnesses deposed in favour of Muhammad, Aslam.
14. In these circumstances we can safely conclude that the enquiry proceedings culminating into the removal from service of Muhammad Aslam were merely a farce. The learned lower Court was therefore justified in ordering the re-instatement of Muhammad Aslam.
15. In this view of the matter the appeal filed by the Divisional Superintendent. R. M. S., Multan Division is dismissed and the order of the learned lower Court to the extent of re-instatement of Muhammad Aslam is upheld.
16. As regards the appeal of Muhammad Aslam it is observed that we have already concluded that the enquiry resulting into the removal from service of Muhammad Aslam was merely a farce.
17. In such circumstances he would appear to be entitled to back bene--fits. In Muhammad Saeed v. Road Transport Corporation, Lahore (1967 PLC 841) it was held by the Industrial Appellate 'Tribunal, West Pakistan that when the domes--tic enquiry was found as a mire farce re- instatement in the circumstances should be with full back wages for period of unemployment due to termination in pursuance of such enquiry because where enquiry was proved to be a farce it was not merely a technical ground but a substantial ground for setting aside termination of service. Similar view eras been taken in 1970 PLC 294 and 1974 PLC 298.
18. In view of the above we accept the appeal of Muhammad Aslam and mortify the order of the learned lower Court to the extent that Muhammad Aslam is allowed full back benefits. th