DECISION This appeal by the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation arises from an order of the Fourth Sind Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance application of respondent Zafar Ejaz and re-instating him in service with back benefits.
2. According to the Steel Mills management Zafar Ejaz was a Junior Officer and not a worker in the Steel Mills, but the admitted position is that the respondent was working as Air-conditioner technician and there was nobody working under him nor was-he supervising the work of any one.
He was therefore a de-technical worker, the pay or designation not being material for termination of his status.
3. Zafar Ejaz remained on casual leave from 21-6-1992 to 25-6-1992. He then applied for Earned Leave from 29-6-1992 to 9-7-1992. His Casual Leave was converted into Earned Leave and he was finally to report for duty on 13-7-1992 but as admitted by him in his cross-examination he reported for duty on 30-8-1992 and thus overstayed his leave by 17 days. The reason given by him is that he could not attend to his duties on account of his mother's illness but that appears to be a lame excuse. Nothing prevented him from getting the extension of Earned Leave in the. Mr. Muhammad Tasnim for the respondent however states that the respondent had applied for extension of leave and under Order 8(2) a reply had to be given to him in writing allowing or refusing the extension but no such reply was sent to him.
4. He has then argued that in this case there were to domestic enquiries. The first Enquiry Officer exonerated him from any liability and found him not guilty. His report was not accepted. Another Enquiry Office was then appointed. He had thus to face to trials as an accused person.
5. Mr. Mumtaz A. Shaikh for the Steel Mills is not able to satisfy the Tribunal whether the question of extension of his leave was considered of decided and whether the reply was sent to the respondent in the as required under Order 8(2) of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
6. The learned Advocate cannot give any reason why the report of the first Enquiry Officer was rejected and another enquiry was held. Very likely the second Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry to the prejudice of the worker.
7. Nobody can be vexed twice for the same offence. This is based or the Roman Maxim "Nemo debit bis vexari" (when once the .Person was acquitted he could not be tried again and convicted).
8. This does not appear to be a case of misconduct but it is rather case regarding grant of extension of Earned Leave. The respondent was also partly to be blamed for enjoying the leave before getting it sanctioned.
9. Under these circumstances, I maintain the order of the Fourth Sind Labour Court regarding reinstatement, but allow this reinstatement without any back benefits, because the respondent was responsible for facing the enquiry due to extension not having been obtained in the.
10. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed with regard to the payment of back benefits.