1984 PLC(CS) 1073

The titled appeal emerges from the decision, dated 16th June, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court. No. 1, Lahore, whereby the appellant was directed to be re‑instated in service, but back benefits were not allowed for the reason that he had succeeded only on technical ground. The appellant has in this appeal claimed back benefits.

2. The learned lower Court has clearly held that service of enquiry notice Exh. R‑5 was not established, inasmuch as the postal receipt or A/D receipt had not been produced and RW‑2 dispatch clerk had categorically said that the said notice was not entered in the dispatch register. Since enquiry notice had not been served, the appellant had no knowledge, of the date of enquiry and thus could not appear to defend himself. The enquiry was thus not legal and no punishment could be awarded on the basis of such an enquiry. The appellant was condemned unheard. The rule of audi alteram pratem applies and the whole proceedings including the dismissal order stood vitiated. It was not, therefore, merely a technical defect. If the appellant had been afforded opportunity to stand the enquiry, he may have proved that he did not remain absent without leave. He thus is entitled to back benefits also.

3. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the appeal and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court allow back benefits to the appellant.

A. E. Appeal accepted.