Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1975, decided on 23rd May, 1979.
‑‑‑ S. 36 (3)‑‑Appellant failing to employ worker in spite of order of reinstatement by labour Court‑Conviction, held, justified but sentence of imprisonment reduced to one week as already under gone in view of civil liability having been compromised between parties.
Suleman Kassim for Appellant.
This is an appeal against the order dated 31st December, 1974 by IIIrd. Labour Court convicting the appellant for 3 months R. I. and Rs. 500 fine in default, 1 month's R. I. under section 36‑E of I. R. O. 1969. The appellant was found to have failed to employ the worker Fida Muhammad in spite of the order of re‑instatement made by Junior Labour Court on 31st November, 1974. The trial Court based his judgment on the endorse ment of the postman on the registered letter sent by Fida Muhammad to applicant whereby a request was made to employ Fida Muhammad and the applicant was alleged to have refused to receive the letter. Corroboration was sought from statements made by witnesses of the defence where they had admitted that they had frequently seen the com plainant Fida Muhammad outside the Mills. In the circumstances of the case the conviction was justified and conviction is maintained but sentence is considered below.
Mr. Suleman Kassim has argued only on the point of sentence and claims that the offence was merely of a technical nature and in any case the applicant had offered to take back the complainant in his employment on the first day of hearing of the complaint by the Labour Court an.9 hence a severe sentence of imprisonment was not justified. The counsel contends that the section provides for a sentence of fine in the alternative and the same would have met the ends of justice particular ly when the applicant was willing to employ the worker and had thereby shown his remorse. Counsel also produced certified copy of an order whereby the civil liability has been compromised between the parties on 31st January, 1975 and the complainant Fida Muhammad has received Rs. 1500 in full and final settlement of his claim and has ceased to be the employee of the applicant.
In the circumstances I think the sentence should be reduced to the imprisonment of one week already undergone and fine of Rs. 500. Appeal is thus disposed of.
Order accordingly
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer