1. DECISION ' The above-cited cross appeals have been filed by Mian Muhammad ex-Wrapper Bundle Press, United Textile Mills, Multan, hereinafter mentioned as appellant and the Managing Director Management, against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan dated 5th April, 1974, reinstating the appellant in service with further direction to the effect that he shall net be entitled to any back benefits. The appellant has come up in appeal for the award of the back benefits in addition to his re-instatement while the Management has challenged the order of the re- instatement itself. Both the appeals will be disposed of by this order.
2. ' It has been observed in the impugned order that appellant was working in the Mills for the last five years as Chowkidar and was transferred as a probation Wrapper to which job he was not conversant and therefore he committed a mistake of wrong labeling on the pressed bundles and that he could be punished with stoppage of increment or promotion instead of dismissal from service. It was also observed that the enquiry proceedings had not been otherwise properly conducted.
3. ' I have gone through the record of the learned Lower Court and that of the domestic enquiry proceedings besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The enquiry admittedly was held in the absence of the appellant and the Management failed to show proper service of the charge- sheet, first show-cause notice or second show-cause notice on him. The basic stand of the appellant is that the enquiry was deliberately conducted on his back and he was locked out despite his will to be present at his job at the relevant time of the referred to notice (Exh. P. A). Bib. P.
4. C., Exh. P. D., Exh. D. A.-, Exh. D. B , Exh. D. D. And Exh. D. E. But I none of these notices could be shown to have been properly served on the appellant. There is no evidence if a copy of the enquiry report Exh. D. F. Was served on him nor there is any record to show that he was given an opportunity of putting up his defence to refute the charge made against him. The enquiry was made in a haphazard manner which could not be held to be a valid enquiry in the eye of law. So the observation in the impugned order that the enquiry was properly conducted by the Management cannot be sustained in view of evidence on record. On the other hand the appellant can be regarded to have been seriously prejudiced in his defence and for that matter he could not be deprived of his back benefits alongwith re-instatement. It is worthwhile to mention at this stage that the enquiry had been conducted A against the workman in proper manner giving him fair opportunity of defence, then the learned Junior Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to decrease the amount of punishment fined by the Management. In other words in face of the finding of the learned lower Court that the enquiry was fairly conducted no question of re-instatement of the appellant could arise by converting punishment of dismissal into a stopage of increment or demotion of rank as concluded in the impugned order.
5. ' A preliminary objection was also raised on behalf of the Management that the petition of the appellant originally being accepted by the learned Junior Labour Court vide its order dated 6th December, 1972, the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, vide its order dated 21st July, 1973 had set aside the said order by returning the petition to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum which by the said date was the Junior Labour Court by virtue of an amendment in the relevant law affected subsequently to the first order made by that Court. The learned counsel argued that as the case was not remanded to the Junior Labour Court, it could not take cognizance of the case by way of remand unless the petition was presented afresh before it by the second appellant. But the fact could not be denied by the learned counsel that the case was treated as a remand case by the Junior Labour Court itself without any fault of the appellant who was called upon to prosecute his petition on the Court which left no room for him for any fresh presentation. Moreover it is also admitted that the Junior Labour Court was vested with the powers to deal with the petition at the time when order dated 21st July, 1973, was passed by the Punjab Labour Court. The appeal of the appellant does not fail on this ground too. In the result the appeal of the appellant is accepted and that of the Management dismissed. Accordingly Mian Muhammad appellant would be deemed to have been re-instated in service with back benefits under the impugned order.