Find a Lawyer

Application No. KAR‑757 of 1980, decided on 26th November, 1980.

‑‑‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)..‑‑Revision‑‑Suo motu proceedings‑‑Applicant invoking suo motu jurisdiction of revision on plea that Labour Court failed by mistake to decide issue of back benefits while passing reinstate ment order‑‑Order of Labour Court containing specific decision on such issue‑Revisional powers, in circumstances, not exercised by Appellate Tribunal

Date of hearing : 26th November, 1980.

This purports to be information submitted by one Abdul Sattar, a former workman of Gul Ahmad Textile Mills, for taking sue motu revi sion proceedings in respect of an order passed by the learned Fourth La bour Court on 2nd July, 1980, under section 51. I. R. O. The informant is aggrieved by the said order which does not award him back benefits. The informant himself is absent and has authorised his son Abdul Ghaffar to appear before this Tribunal. He has been heard.

2. The application by the informant under section 51, I. R. O. is based upon the decision of the learned Fourth Labour Court, dated 21st August, 1978. The said order does not specifically award any back bene fits to the informant but directs that the termination order of the informant is set aside and the respondent‑Mills were ordered to pay up to date legal dues to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Social Security Ordinance and any other law for the time being in force. It may be pointed out that whereas previously under section 36‑E, I. R. O. upon reinstatement in service, a wrongly dismissed or discharged worker was entitled normally to back benefits, no such provision now exist on the statute book and it has been left to the discretion of the Labour Court to pass such orders as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. There is, thus, no statutory provision requiring the respondent mills to pay back benefits to the informant consequent upon his reinstatement in service.

3. It may further be mentioned that the contention of the informant that the learned Labour Court by mistake and oversight has not consid ered the point of back benefits and has not discussed the same is wholly incorrect and false. The learned Labour Court in the third‑last and second‑last paragraphs of its order has fully discussed this issue and has awarded the informant a sum of Rs. 189,42 only as back benefits for 144 days only.

4. The information submitted by the informant is, thus, misconceived and I find no substance therein. No grounds taking suo mote revision proceedings are made out.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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