' Iftikhar Ahmad Butt the appellant was employed as clerk, in the Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd., Lahore, an Enemy Property which is presently under the control of the respondent, the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property, Banking Control Department State Bank of Pakistan Lahore, on 13th September 1966. The appellant was confirmed with effect from 3rd October 1972. The appellant was involved in a murder case in April, 1973. He intimated his employer on 20th April 1973 about his involvement in the criminal case and of his inability to attend his office. He remained in the lock-up till 15th August 1974. He was released on bail by order of the High Court on 15th August 1974. On 17th August 1974 he approached the respondent and reported for duty on 27th August, 1974, he was informed through a memo that he had ceased to be in service with effect from 7th July 1973 as he had exhausted the leave due to him and that he might apply to the bank for re-appointment after he was acquitted of the charge. The appellant represented against this order but the respondent turned down his representation. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on the ground that the appellant should in the first instance seek redress before the Labour Court. The appellant consenquently filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Junior Labour Court No, 2, Lahore against the respondent seeking his re-instatement and the back benefits.
2. The respondent resisted the application of the appellant before the learned Court below inter alia on the ground that the appellant had already exhausted the leave due to him under the bank rules and since no more leave was available to him therefore the bank had to terminate his services. The appellant was however offered option that he could apply for re-appointment when he was acquitted of the charge.
3. Iftikhar Ahmad Butt, appellant appeared as his own witness before the learned lower Court and also produced documentary evidence regarding his leave application etc. No evidence was led in rebuttal. After considering the parties evidence the learned Court below found that the order of termination of the appellant from service was made in an illegal manner, in as much as, he was not afforded with any opportunity to show cause and as procedure prescribed by law was not observed. Consequently through the impugned order dated 6th February 1975 the appellant was ordered to be re-instated but the back benefits were refused.
4. The appellant has filed the present appeal for the modification of the impugned order to the extent that back benefits be also allowed to the appellant.
5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. The parties have also been heard at a considerable length. This is an admitted fact that the appellant duly intimated the employer of his involvement in the murder case. This is also not denied that he remained in the judicial lock-up till 15th August 1974 when he was released on bail by the order of the High Court. Soon after his release on bail i,e, on 17th August 1974 the appellant reported for duty and presented the application Exh.
PC to the bank for being allowed to resume his duty. The criminal case in which the appellant is involved is not in any manner connected with the employer. The employer has wrongfully terminated the appellant without observing the formalities prescribed by law. In these circumstances the appellant would appear to be entitled to the back benefits at least from the date he reported for duty viz. 17th August 1974. As regards the period of absence of appellant from service prior to 17th August 1974 on account of his involvement in the murder case the appellant can be allowed leave of the kind due.
6. In this view of the matter, I accept the appeal and modify the impugned order to this extent that the appellant is re-instated, with back benefits with effect from 17th August 1974, and the period of his absence from duty on account of his involvement in the murder case prior to 17th August 1974 will be treated as leave of the kind due to him.