Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SA‑198 of 1978, decided on 22nd December, 1981,

‑‑‑ Dismissal of employees of taken over industry‑Special powers of Managing Director to remove an employee effective during process of taking over and ended on completion of that process Dismissal without charge sheet on account of alleged absence without leave long, after taking over set aside by Labour Court and re instatement with back benefits awarded‑‑Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A and 38.

Javed Altaf for Appellant.

Muhammad Ikram for Respondent.

This appeal has been preferred against the decision dated 23rd November, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent sent telegram Exh. R‑A seeking leave, in reply to which telegram Exh. R‑J was sent to him by the management asking him to join duty, otherwise his leave without medical certificate could not be granted. The respondent did not join duty and he was dismissed. The absence of the respondent was from 13th October 1972 to 14th November 1972. The respondent afterwards has made application for leave for the period from 8th October 1972 to 10th October 1972 but it was refused. No charge‑sheet was given and he was dismissed under Economic Reforms Orders, 1972 on 14th November, 1972 by the order of the Managing Director. The order is Exh. R‑L. The respondent gave grievance notice on 3rd January, 1973 and brought the grievance petition to the then Junior Labour Court on 23rd January, 1973. The petition was dismissed on 3rd February 1973. An appeal was preferred against the decision on 16th February 1973 but it was withdrawn on 30th June 1973. Second application was made to the Junior Labour Court on 5th February, 1973. The same was dismissed on 12th February 1973. Against this decision an appeal was preferred on 23rd February 1973 which was accepted on 5th September 1973 and the case remanded for decision afresh. In the order it is written that the appeal is remanded but the word 'appeal' appears to have been written by mistake. After the remand the petition was accepted by the impugned order and the respondent directed to be reinstated with back benefit.

3. The question whether after the withdrawal of the appeal preferred against the dismissal of the first application, second application was maintainable or not cannot be decided in this appeal, because this matter is sub judice before the High Court in writ petition. If the finding of the High Court is that second petition does not lie then the matter ended when the appeal preferred against the dismissal of the first application was withdrawn. Anyhow, as I have considered the impugned order, I proceed to decide the appeal. Since admittedly, no charge‑sheet was given to the respondent, nor any enquiry was held, the order of his dismissal is not maintainable. The order of dismissal is not covered by the Economic Reforms Omer because the powers given to the Managing Director to remove any person were effective during the period the Industries were being taken over by the Government and as soon as the process of taking over became complete A those special powers came to an end. Those powers were given to the Managing Director to remove certain persons, if they ca use any hindrance or chaos and obstruct the process of taking over. The dismissal of the respondent took place long after the appellant mills were taken ovee and thus those powers at that time could not be exercised nor it was necessary to exercise them.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I hold that the order of reinstatement of the respondent with back benefits is correct and not finding any force in the appeal, I dismiss it.

Appeal 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.