DECISION ' The appellant was employed as Store man in the Steel Mills from the year, 1979. In July, 1991 he was redesigned as Junior Officer though he continued to do the same work of manual and clerical nature. During the employment of the appellant it was discovered that the appellant as CBA had distributed some pamphlets against the Steel Mills. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to whom he replied submitting his explanation. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry notice was issued dated 30-4-1992. This was not served though the postal endorsement showed"){{URDU TEXT}}. When this letter which was refused was opened in Court it said that the Board of enquiry will inform him of the date, time and place of enquiry. However, no other letter has been produced containing date and time and place of enquiry nor is there evidence that such a letter has been served. The appellant was then dismissed from service and he was served with the dismissal order.
2. The learned Labour Court deciding the grievance petition of the appellant found the domestic enquiry proceedings to be defective and directed re-instatement of the applicant/appellant within 30 days, and also ordered fresh enquiry. The back benefits depended on the result of the fresh enquiry which was to be held within 30 days from the date of the order. Against this order the Steel Mills as well as the worker Saleem Ahmed have filed their appeals.
3. It has been admitted by Mr. Abdus Samad, Advocate for the Steel Mills that at the time of the charge-sheet Saleem Ahmed was not doing the work of the Junior Officer but he was a worker. The only other point that remains is regarding the service of the enquiry notice, but as pointed out the alleged enquiry notice said to have been served on Saleem Ahmed was not an enquiry notice nor a charge-sheet but it only said that he would be informed of the date, time and place of enquiry so there is neither enquiry notice nor does a question of any service of the enquiry notice arise. Since there was no intimation given to the worker regarding the domestic enquiry it was necessary to issue and serve him second show-cause notice regarding his dismissal but no such notice has admittedly been served. The Supreme Court ruling referred to by Mr. Abdus Samad, Advocate only absolves the party not issuing the show-cause notice where it can definitely be said that no prejudice has been caused by non-issue of such notice but in the present case the domestic enquiry was held without knowledge of the accused and it was necessary that he should have been informed about the punishment sought to be inflicted on him. He was neither informed nor given opportunity to show cause against the punishment of dismissal. The enquiry was, therefore, bad and defective as held by the Labour Court. The Steel Mills did not comply with the orders of the Labour Court by holding a fresh enquiry within the time specified. This appeal of the Steel Mills is thus without any substance and is accordingly dismissed. The cross-appeal of the workman is against the order putting the question of back benefits in abeyance and the back benefits were to be decided on the result of the fresh enquiry. Since the Steel Mills deliberately avoided complying with the order of the Court holding fresh enquiry, there is no other reason for non-payment of the back benefits. The cross-appeal of the worker is, therefore, allowed. It is directed that he should be paid back benefits from the date of his dismissal.
4. Thus, the appeal of Steel Mills is dismissed and the appeal of the worker Saleem Ahmed is allowed.