' This is an appeal from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, dated 23rd of November, 1993, whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was accepted.
2. The respondent was an employee of the appellants as Incharge Circulation. H was served with a charge-sheet on the allegation that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs,90,024.48. After a domestic inquiry, he was dismissed from service. He assailed his dismissal in the Labour Court by way of a grievance petition. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal on the ground that the charge-sheet had been issued by an incompetent authority. The decision of the Labour Court was upheld by this Tribunal vide judgment, dated 17th of May, 1989. Threafter, the appellants started deducting the above amount by instalments from the pay of the respondent at the rate of Rs,500 per month. The respondent again filed a grievance petition for a direction to the appellants to refrain from deducting any amount from his pay and also to refund the amount already deducted by them. He pleaded that the recovery from his pay was being effected without any notice to him.
3. The appellants contested the grievance petition. They averred that since it was found in the earlier inquiry, as a result of which the respondent was dismissed, that he had misappropriated the amount in question, the impugned recovery was being effected from his pay according to law.
After recording evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Labour Court accepted the grievance petition of the respondent holding that the impugned recovery was illegal as it was being effected without any notice.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The earlier inquiry which culminated into the dismissal of the respondent, was set aside on the ground that the charge- sheet on the basis of which the same was held, had not been issued by a competent authority.
Therefore, those proceedings could not inure for any fresh punitive action against the respondent without affording him an opportunity of hearing against it. Learned counsel for the appellants has frankly admitted that no fresh notice was issued to the respondent before effecting the impugned recovery from his pay. Therefore, the impugned recovery manifestly offends against the principle audi alteram partem. In this view of the matter, the decision of the learned Labour Court is quite appropriate.
6. In the result, I find no ground for interference and dismiss this appeal.