Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑8 of 1971, heard on 30th March 1971.

‑Dismissal due to misconduct‑Opportunity of hearing by Enquiry Officer not afforded‑Re‑instatement, in circumstances, ordered subject to enquiry to be held by employer ‑Labour Court ordering re‑instatement without any condi tion and allowing 50 % of back wages considering that employer should not suffer for prolonged proceedings before Labour Court Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, held, though not proper yet based on good reasons‑Claim for full back wages, held, subject to result of fair enquiry and due only if worker found not guilty by Enquiry Officer‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15(5).

P. W. R. v. Mrs. A. V. Issacs P L D 1970 S C 415 held not applicable.

A. Majeed for Appellant.

Sajid Hussain Jafri for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing. 30th March 1971.

This is an appeal against an award of the First Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated 1st January 1971. The appellant is aggrieved against the award, inasmuch as, the Court did not grant him full back benefits on his re‑instatement. The Court granted 50 % of the emoluments due to him from the date that he was dismissed from service to the date that he was re‑instated in service.

2. Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appel lant contended that the appellant should have been granted full wages from the date that he was dismissed from service to the date that he was taken back in service. He submits that the learned Chairman of the Court has not given his reasons as to why he has granted only 50 % wages. After going through the order of the learned Court it is clear to me that the Court had good reasons for not granting full wages. The appellant was dismissed from service on 19th November 1963. He made an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, on 4^th December 1968. It was disposed of on 1st January 1971, and the appellant was ordered to be re‑instated on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to be heard by the Enquiry Officer. The Management, tile Court thought, should not be penalized if the application under section 38 of the Ordinance took over two years of time for disposal. The Court considered that it would be sufficient compensation to the appellant if he was granted 50% of the wages. In the second place the Court ordered that the appellant should be re‑instated without any condition. Ordinarily, the Court should have ordered that the appellant should be reinstated and should not have passed any order as to the back benefits, which would have been dependent upon the result of the enquiry to be held against the appellant. If the appellant was found to be nut guilty by the Enquiry Officer, he would have been entitled to full back benefits, otherwise to nothing. In the present case, the Management was directed to take appellant back without any condition In these circum stances, I would hold that there was sufficient ground for the order that the Court passed allowing 50 % of the wages to the, appellant.

3. In the second place; Mr. Majeed relied on Standing Order 15 (5) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, in support of his contention that the appellant should have been granted full wages there is no force in this submission. Under Standing Order 15(5) the appellant would be entitled to full wages if he was found to be not guilty by the Enquiry Officer. In the present cases, the Court having come to the conclusion that no enquiry was held, the appellant could not be said to have been found to be not guilty,

4. Lastly, Mr. Majeed relied on a Supreme Court authority reported in P. W. R., Lahore v. Mrs. A. V. Issacs (P L D 1970 S C 415). In that case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan came to the conclusion that the wages of a Government servant was not the bounty of the State. If he was reinstated be was entitled to the salary that he would have earned. The principle settled in that case has no application to the circumstances of the present case. In this case, the proper order of the Court should have been that the appellant is re‑instated subject to the enquiry to be held by the Management. If he was found to be not guilty, he would have been surely entitled to full wages. With this observa tion, I would dismiss the appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.