Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑140 of 1981, decided on 6th January, 1982.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑‑Termination of service without proper enquiry or reasonable defence opportunity Such failure does not wash away guilt of accused‑Employer tiers should be given option of holding proper enquiry‑Payment of back benefits would depend upon result of such fresh enquiry‑Labour Court finding that termination was without any inquiry and proper defence opportunity awarding re‑instatement but refusing back be nefits‑Order of Labour Court maintained by Appellate Tribunal to extent of re‑instatement but employer allowed option to hold fresh inquiry and payment of back benefits made dependent upon result of such enquiry.

Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1.980 S C 307 fol.

Farkhand Ali for Appellants.

Respondent in person.

Abdul Rehman Baloch for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 6th January. 1982.

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned V1Ith Labour Court, given on 12th February, 1981, directing the re‑instatement in service of the respondent herein but refusing him back benefits on the ground that there was no evidence to show that he was without a job during the long period that the proceedings took place before the Court. The said order was based on the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the termination of services of the respondent took place without holding any enquiry or affording him proper opportunity of defending himself.

2. The stand of Mr. Farkhand Ali, the learned counsel of the appel lant is that in fact the services of the respondent were never terminated but domestic enquiries are proposed to be held against him for an alleged fraud committed by him. 1n view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLD 1980SC307) and of this Tribunal in the case of Niaz Ahmad v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd., decided on 24th November, 1980, where the law on the subject has been reviewed in some detail where it has been held that if the services of an employee are terminated without a proper enquiry or affording him reasonable opportunity of defence, the employer should be given an option of holding a proper enquiry into the alleged mis conduct of the employee, as failure to hold such an enquiry or affording him an opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry, does not wash away the guilt of the employee, both the learned counsel agreed that the appellants should have the option of holding a proper enquiry against the respondent, and that further despite the order of the learned Labour Court refusing to grant back benefits to, the respondent, the payment of the back benefits would depend upon the result of that fresh enquiry. As this submission is in accordance with the principle of law as decided by the authorities, I would modify the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court to the effect that while the order of re‑instatement service of the respondent is maintained, the appellants would be at liberty hold a proper enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the respondent to take action on the basis of such enquiry. Furthermore, the‑14 payment of back benefits to the respondent would depend upon the result of that enquiry. The enquiry proceedings should commence within a period 0f 2 months from the date of this order, and if they are) not so commenced, it shall be deemed that the appellants do no wish to exercise the option of the enquiry. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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