Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 371 of 1974, decided on 14th June 1975.

--‑Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Accused workman avoiding partici pation in enquiry‑Such fact only forming basis of final conclusion of inquiry report‑‑No substantial evidence available on record of inquiry report‑Order of Junior Labour Court allowing re‑instatement without benefit of back wages, in circumstances, modified and back benefits also allowed‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 36‑D.

Hussan Alt Shah for Appellant.

Saeed Ahmad, L. D. C. for Respondent.

An appeal has been filed by Mst. Sharifan Bibi against the order of learned Junior Labour Court of 13th December, 1974, directing her re‑instatement in service of Pakistan Railway Multan Division as Aya in Railwa3 Hospital. It has been observed in impugned order that fresh inquiry ma) be made against the appellant by the respondent if so advised and that the appellant would not be entitled to back benefits. The present appeal has been directed against the refusal of back benefits against the direction of fresh enquiry no cross appeal has been filed against the re‑instatement. The findings of the learned Junior Labour Court are based on the main ground that the enquiry proceeded against the appellant on her back which fact was acknowledged even by the Vice‑Chairman (Personnel) of Pakistan Railway,‑vide letter, dated 13th June, 1974 copy Exh. P‑1. It has been concluded that the appellant was prejudiced in this enquiry and on that score deserved to be re‑instated. I have gone through the relevant record and find that the enquiry proceedings were not properly placed on record of Junior Labour Court nor any witness was examined on behalf of the respon dent to substantiate the important points of enquiry before the Court. So much so the self‑averments regarding unfair labour practice made by the appellant were not rebutted by any evidence. All what is done on behalf of respondent is the production of a few documents relevant in the enquiry. No doubt the enquiry officer mentioned in the enquiry report that the appel lant wilfully avoided to participate in the enquiry, but is conclusive against the appellant in the absence of any substantiating evidence on behalf of the respondent. In such circumstances the order of re‑instatement could hardly sustain the order denying the appellant her back benefits. In the result the appellant may be deemed to have been re‑instated with back benefits without any condition of fresh enquiry.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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