DECISION ' This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur whereby the petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was allowed and the petitioner was reinstated in service with full back benefits. The circumstances in which it arose are as follows:- ' The petitioner was appointed as a Storeman on 12-2-1974 and in 1986 he was promoted as Storekeeper. In April, 1988 he was suspended and eventually came to be dismissed on 5-12-1990 which had resulted in the filing of the petition before the Labour Court.
2. The petition was resisted on different grounds including the want of jurisdiction with the Labour Court as it was said that the terms and conditions of service were regulated by the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplines) Rules, 1973 as adopted by S.A.S.O. Otherwise too he was not a workman.
3. The Labour Court overruled these contentions and for the reasons given by it allowed the petition.
4. Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon has repeated the contention, in regard to the maintainability of the petition but that is devoid of any force, in view of the judgment in Constitutional Petition No, D-114 of 1994 namely Asghar Ali v. The Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organisation and others which was decided on 19-3-1985. Even the objection about the status of the respondent would not be available because the respondent was not subjected to any cross-examination at all and otherwise too there is nothing in the statement of Fateh Muhammad Samo the respondent's witness to show that he was not a workman.
5. Admittedly the petitioner was suspended in April 1988 and there was an enquiry thereafter which had been conducted by Abdul Karim Memon, Agricultural Assistant. He had examined the respondent and also 2 persons on 13th and 17th August. However the witnesses had been examined in the absence of the respondent. That is admitted by Fateh Muhammad and therefore had to be without cross-examination too. It was thereafter that the charge-sheet had been given on 13-9- 1988.
6. Admittedly there was no enquiry whatsoever after the charge-sheet had been given to the respondent and he had replied to the same. The dismissal that followed thereafter is certainly in total violation of Standing Order 15. Otherwise too even the charge-sheet would be beyond one month.
7. Under the circumstances the impugned order in regard to the reinstatement is not open to any exception.
8. The record shows that the proceedings against the respondent were drawn up because there was a defalcation in the sum of Rs,3,55,912. The order of dismissal has been set aside only on technical grounds and it cannot be said that he was more sinned against alien sinning. Looking to the principles laid down in Muhammad Bashir v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1991 SCM R 2087 back benefits could not be awarded. I will therefore set aside this part of the order.
9. As a result the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent will be reinstated in service if not already there, but without any back benefits. Orders accordingly.