SHAMIM KIYANI Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI

DECISION

The appellant was dismissed from service as he had allowed a fellow member of the staff to take along the bus under his charge on the road.

2. He had filed a petition which came to be allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated. However, the back benefits were denied to him for two reasons; firstly because it was found that the Enquiry Officer had himself cross- examined the defence witnesses and secondly that the Enquiry Officer against whom the appellant had hurled some accusations was not examined to rebut the charges. According to the Labour Court, as the grounds of the order of reinstatement were technical in nature it was not a fit case in which back benefits should be given to the appellant. Some citations had also been given in support of the view taken by it.

3. The case of Muhammad Bashir v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in 1991 SCMR 2087, considers the principle governing the grant of back benefits in depth. It has been held therein that if the dismissal is without jurisdiction, unwarranted and uncalled for, the petitioner would be entitled to the back benefits, but he would not be entitled "if it has been actuated partly or wholly on account of the conduct attributable to him."

4. I do not see any reason as to why the appellant should suffer for the inapt performance of the Enquiry Officer, or his being withheld from stepping 'into the witness‑box by the respondent, all the more when there is a solitary witness of the incident, in the night time, and when the appellant's interest in the Union activities are not denied. I will therefore set aside this impugned part of the order and grant him back benefits from the day of dismissal upto the day he is reinstated.

H.B.T./2134/Lb.S Back benefits granted.