Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑884 of 1979, decided on 15th May, 1979.

‑‑‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Workman ‑ Back benefits ‑‑‑ Same set of evidence not capable of being used for purpose of awarding punishment, it can, held, equally not be utilized for awarding back benefit to a workman.

Crescent Jute Products Ltd. v. Muhammad Yaqub etc. N L R 1978 Labour (S C) 1 ref.

Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Petitioner.

‑The petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent No. 1 and it is alleged that on account of his active participation in the Trade Union activities he was charge‑sheeted on 1st October, 1977 for remaining absent from duty from 19th September, 1977 onwards for more than 10 days. The petitioner furnished his expla nation and thereafter the matter was referred for enquiry to the Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent No. 1. In consequence of the enquiry report he was dismissed from service w. e. f. 6th January, 1978. The petitioner in the circumstances, moved the Labour Court under sec tion 25‑A of the 1. R. O., 1969, after service of grievance petition. The petitioner's application was granted by the Labour Court as per order dated 29th November, 1978 and the respondent No. 1 was directed to re‑instate the petitioner with full back benefits. This order was challenged by the respondent No. 1 in appeal before the learned Chairman, Sind, Labour Appellate Tribunal who passed the impugned order dated 14^th April, 1978. The learned Tribunal on the perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the parties agreed with the Presiding officer of the Labour Court that the petitioner was not given proper oppor tunity to defend himself. The learned Tribunal, however, held that in the circumstances, the proper course to be taken by the learned Labour Court was to have permitted the Management to hold a fresh enquiry by appointing another Enquiry officer and the question of back benefits should have been made dependent upon the result of the fresh enquiry.

Mr: Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the learned Labour Tribunal was not justified in with holding the back benefits awarded to the petitioner by the Labour Court. The learned counsel, however, conceded that in view of the finding of the learned Labour Court that the enquiry conducted in the matter was not fair, the evidence recorded during the enquiry proceedings could not be relied upon. This being so, it cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner was absolved of the charge altogether and thus if the same set of evidence could not be used for the purpose of awarding punishment, it could equally not be utilised for awarding back benefits to the petitioner. In the circumstances, n exception can be taken to the order of the learned Tribunal, more particularly because he also ordered that the question of granting back benefits should abide by the result of the fresh enquiry.

3, The learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Supreme the case of "Crescent Jute Products Ltd. v. Muhammad Yaqub Court to ere. (N L R 1978 Labour S C 1) where it was held that in exercise of jurisdiction under sec tion 25‑A of the I. R. O. 1969, the Labour Court had jurisdiction to go behind a dismissal order and see for itself whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, dismissal order was or was not justified, both on merits as well as on law. There can be‑ hardly any dispute with this proposition of law. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned order p in lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. The findings of learned Tribunal are based on facts and evidence on the record and both the parties have benefited in the result.

4. We find no merits in the petition which is dismissed summarily.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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