' The appeal is directed against the decision dated 7-5-1994, rendered by the Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, rejecting Mubarik Masih's claim to back benefits, and allowing his prayer for reinstatement in service.
2. Mubarik Masih had been employed as Sanitary Worker and he was removed from service on 1-9- 1989, which order, it was pleaded, was verbal and had not been preceded by any enquiry or charge-sheet, or show-cause notice. The Corporation, however, maintained that it had been continuously receiving complaints against conduct and work of Mubarik Masih, whose services were terminated, on observance of all the legal formalities. The Chief Sanitary Inspector as R.W. 1 furnished testimony to that effect; and Mubarik as P.W. 1 repeated his averments embodied in his grievance petition.
3. The learned lower Court came to the conclusion that although services of Mubarik Masih were terminated because of his absence from duty without leave, he was not served with a charge- sheet and made to face an enquiry and, thus, was condemned unheard and that this was against all principles of natural justice. Even if his conduct was open to exception and his work was unsatisfactory, and a substitute had been appointed, as averred by the Corporation, to clean the dirt from the area, the Labor Laws dictated that all legal formalities should have been gone through and the accused worker should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before being asked to quit service or before his dismissal from service.
4. A perusal of the record leads me to the conclusion that the reasoning recorded and the findings given by the learned lower Court are safe and sound, and on valid premises he has been refused back benefits. He has laid a claim to his arrears of salary/wages, but has not been able to establish his entitlement to back benefits, to the satisfaction of this Court. Bad conduct and poor performance of the accused had attributed to the action initiated against him, and it was a magnanimous approach by the learned Labour Court that a kind treatment was meted out to the official and he was reinstated in service. I would not differ with the finding that the employee had no entitlement to award of back benefits; and I proceed to dismiss the appeal, although with no order as to costs.