DECISION ' These are two appeals one filed by Syed Masoodul Hassan against back benefits and the other by M/s. Master Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited manufacturers of Molty Foam against reinstatement of their employee Syed Masoodul Hassan after he had been dismissed from service.
2. It is the case of the management that Syed Masoodul Hassan used to purchase raw material for the factory and it was found that he was buying the thread from the market at a rate higher than the market rate and taking the extra commission himself. They, therefore, threatened Syed Masoodul Hassan for this misconduct and Syed Masoodul Hassan absented himself from duty from 20-2-1993 till 4-3-1993. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted for this absence and dismissed from service. He sent a grievance notice which was time-barred by one month and he then filed grievance petition before the Labour Court No, 2.
3. It is on the other hand the case of Syed Masoodul Hassan that he was gate-stopped from 9-2- 1993 without any termination order in writing giving reasons. He, therefore, sent his grievance notice in time on 22-2-1993 and he sent another grievance notice by way of caution after his dismissal.
4. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui has argued that the learned Labour Court closed his side during his absence because he could not attend the Court on account of strike. He had thus no opportunity to lead his defence evidence.
5. Mr. Nishat Warsi for the workman has on the other hand argued that the matter was adjourned for a number of times to enable the management to complete their evidence but they had failed to do so.
6. Thus it appears that the services of Syed Masoodul Hassan were terminated because he was suspected of misappropriation but he was charge-sheeted for absence. This allegation has been refuted by the worker by stating that his services were terminated without order in writing and he was gate-stopped. The learned lower Court disposed of the case without trying to arrive at the correct position of the case. The Court should have compelled the parties to produce evidence on these points and should have come to a definite conclusion whether the worker or the management were at fault.
7. The case is, therefore, remanded to Labour Court No, II with the direction to hear the evidence afresh and to give clear findings on the real issues that arise in this case regarding the cause of dismissal and whether it was justified or not.
8. Case remanded.