Find a Lawyer

.

Appeal No. KAR. 425 of .1973, decided on 10th August 1973.

---S. 25‑A‑‑Scope‑‑Section not to be given narrow interpretation depriving workman of his just claim‑Workman having resigned coming into agreement with employer to deposit security if taken back in service ‑‑Employer subsequently changing mind to take him back Application for‑re‑instatement, in circumstances, held, not maintain able but request for refund of security granted‑‑Contention, that remedy for refund of security be sought before civil Court after payment of requisite court‑fee, rejected.

S. P. Lodhi for Appellant.

Shaukat Ali A. Nanji for Respondent.

Date o f hearing: 10th August 1973:

This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. 11, Karachi, dated May 23, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant, filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), for re‑instatement in service or in the alternative for ' the return of the deposit of Rs. 500.00. The appellant had committed misappropriation of certain amounts e: money. The respondent, it is alleged, told him to either face criminal prosecution or resign. The appellant resigned. It is the case of the appellant that because of the intervention of certain persons, the respondent agreed to take him back on the condition that he will deposit Rs. 500.00 as Cash Security. The appellant did so.

2. The respondent did not cross‑examine the appellant. Therefore, whatever, the appellant stated in his affidavit must be taken to be true It appears to me that the respondent agreed to take back the appellant in service, if he deposited Rs: 500.00 as Cash Security. For some reason or the other, the respondent changed his mind to take back the appellant in service. Their being only a breach of the agreement between the appellant and the respondent to take leek the former in service, it would not be a matter for which the appellant could get relief under section 25‑A of the Ordinance. The appellant, however, would be entitled to the refund of Rs. 500.00, which he deposited as security. Mr. Shaukat A. Nanji, the learned representative for the respondent, contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to order the refund of Rs. 500.00. The appellant must pay court‑fees and go to the civil Court. I do not think that, there i much force in this contention. Section 25‑A of the Ordinance should not be given a ‑narrow interpretation so as to deprive a workman of his jot claim. I would order that the respondent should refund Rs. 500.00 to the appellant within two weeks.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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