' This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner has challenged the orders of Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore passed on 1-6-1976 reinstating respondent No, 1 without back benefits and order dated 18- 11-1976 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and accepting the cross-objections filed by respondent No, 1 back benefits were allowed.
2. Respondent No,1 was employed as conductor with the petitioner who was found in possession of excess cash to the extent of Rs,11:12 paisa when his cash was checked on 26-3-1977. He was issued TT.40 on the spot. He admitted the factum of cash being in excess to the extent of Rs, 11.12 paisa. He was thereafter issued charge-sheet on 11-5-1970 and was dismissed from service vide order dated 23-2-1971 with effect from 18-2-1971. The respondent filed appeal against dismissal on 4-3-1971 and the same was kept pending till it was dismissed and decision was communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 7-12-1973. Respondent No, 1 thereafter kept silent and on 7-1-1975 filed a revision petition. This petition was considered and after affording opportunity of personal hearing the same was dismissed and the decision was communicated vide letter dated 27-1-1975/1-3-1975.
3., After the dismissal of the revision petition on the ground of its being barred by limitation, respondent No,1 picked up the matter issued grievance notice and filed grievance petition on 13-3- 1975. The ground of grievance taken by the respondent was that the excess in cash did not constitute the misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order No, 15(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and that the alleged offence fell within the provisions of Standing Order 15(1), (2) of the Schedule of Standing Orders supra. The punishment of the same was reprimand or fine and that his dismissal was illegal. The grievance petition was resisted by the present petitioner and the plea of the petition being barred by limitation was specifically stressed. The plea of the present petitioner did not find favour with the Labour Court and the delay was condoned on merits. The Labour Court agreed with the contention that the allegation as contained in TT.40 amounted to an irregularity and did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 15(3) supra and as such, the dismissal was held to be illegal grievance petition was accepted and the reinstatement was ordered without back benefits.
4. The present petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
Respondent No, 1 also filed his cross-objections, praying for the award of back benefits. The learned Appellate Tribunal agreed with the findings of the Labour Court to the extent of the dismissal being illegal and reinstatement of respondent No, 1 was upheld. The learned Tribunal however accepted the cross-objections of the respondent and the decision of the Labour Court was modified to the extent that back benefits were allowed.
5. I am in complete agreement with the Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in holding that discovery of excess cash amounting to Rs,11.12 paisa did not amount to misconduct as mentioned in Standing Order No, 15(3) supra and that the punishment of dismissal from service was illegal. The re-instatement as ordered by the Labour Court and by learned Tribunal suffer from no illegality. The question of awarding back benefits to respondent No,1 by Appellate Tribunal is of course , exceptionable. The Labour Court had exercised its indulgence in condoning the delay of filing grievance petition but had not allowed back benefits in the circumstances of the case.
6. The Appellate Tribunal gave the following reason for awarding back benefits:-- ........ Since the explanation submitted by the respondent is reasonable and has not been rebutted therefore in my view he is entitled to back benefits."
' This in fact was no ground for declaring respondent No,1 to be entitled to the back benefits.
Respondent No,1 was dismissed from service vide order dated 23-2-1971 and his appeal remained pending and was decided on 7-2-1973. Whatever time became available to respondent No, 1 during the interregnum was wasted by him in not filing a revision petition till 7-1-1975. The revision in fact was a cloak and garb to bring the grievance notice within limitation. The Labour Court having condoned the delay this Court would not go behind reasons given by the Labour Court as the said order of condoning the delay was also upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The fact remains that the circumstances and inordinate delay in filing the revision petition were relevant and the indolent conduct of the workman was worth taking into consideration while justifying the award of back benefits.
' There is no substantive reason apparently which weighed with the Appellate Tribunal in declaring respondent No,1 to be entitled to the back benefits. The appeal of respondent No, 1 was rejected by the Departmental Authority. The revision petition was not filed for a long period of 13 months and the cause of action to issue grievance notice was also lost in the meantime due to expiry of limitation period. The Labour Court having granted indulgence in condoning the delay had all the facts before him and as respondent No,1 had disregarded the departmental instructions, he was declared to be not entitled to back benefits. Yet another fact was most relevant. The excess cash found on the person of the respondent was admitted by him. According to the instructions as contained in manual of drivers and conductors and cleaners of P.R.T.C. No driver or conductor while on duty could carry with him more than Rs,33 as private cash which amount had to be declared to the booking clerk yard master concerned for recording in way-bill, before proceeding to their vehicle. Respondent No, 1 admitted the excess in cash but took up a plea that the amount was on his person as the same was required by him to purchase medicine for his wife. This fact could not condone the non-declaration by the respondent to the booking clerk yard master who could have recorded the same on the way bill before the respondent proceeded to his vehicle. The absence of such recording of a material fact on the way bill sufficiently shows that respondent No,1 himself committed an irregularity in disregarding departmental instructions, rules and orders and the said fact constituted an offence punishable with reprimand or fine under the Standing Orders supra.
The Appellate Tribunal had no lawful authority to override the provisions of manual and disregard the admission/confession made by respondent No,1.
7. The award of back benefits to respondent No,1 by Appellate Tribunal is declared to be without lawful authority. Respondent No, 1 had pleaded as a cause of his delay in filing of the revision petition before the Labour Court that at the time of. Receipt of order of dismissal of appeal he was sick and remained so till first week of January, 1975. For this period of 13 months there was yet another absence of reasons for allowing back benefits. The Labour Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding back benefits.
8. With the above observation and declaring the award of back benefit by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore to respondent No,1 as illegal and without lawful authority the orders of re- instatement as passed by the Punjab Court No,1 re-instating respondent No,1 without back benefits, are upheld as lawful and with jurisdiction. The order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to the extent of allowing back benefits is declared to be without lawful authority. The order to the extent of re-instatement of respondent No,1 is maintained.
9. This petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.