S ' This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 12th December 1975, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi, on a petition male to that Court under section 25-A for re-instatement. Petition was rejected. Hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file of the Junior Labour Court, as well as the impugned order.
3. According to the respondent, appellant misappropriated certain amounts of the respondent on different dates, when the authorities came to know of it they made the appellant to pay back that amount. Enquiry was held by the bank for this misconduct and appellant was dismissed. Photo- state copy of the enquiry proceedings are on the file of the Junior Labour Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of the appellant. It is in the form of questions and answers. No question was put to the appellant as to whether he wanted to produce any defence. Simply there is a note by the Enquiry Officer. It is to the effect "that both the sides agreed that they had nothing to say by way of evidence in that domestic enquiry" and signatures of the appellant were obtained under this note. A clear question should have been put to him whether he wanted to produce defence or not.
4. In that view of the matter I set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court and direct the Management to give an opportunity of defence to the appellant and then come to a new finding in the light of that defence if any. Question of back wages would depend on the result of the enquiry report.