Find a Lawyer

Application No. HYD‑533 of 1981, heard on 20th October, 1981.

‑‑ S. 25‑A (8)‑Non‑compliance with order of Labour Court Re‑instatement‑Labour Court cannot direct an employer that on re‑instatement workman be given any specific work or any work‑Labour Court passing order for re‑instatement Employer re‑instating workman and paying regular wages‑Comp laint that no specific work given‑Employer, in circumstances, held, could not be said to have committed an offence‑Proceedings, in circumstances, quashed by Labour Appellate Tribunal in sun motu exercise of revisional powers‑Revision‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38‑A.

Abdul Khaliq Khan for Applicant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing: 20th October, 1981.

On the information received from the ‑applicant, Saleem Butt, the record and proceedings in complaint case No. 6/81 Muhammad Ashraf v. Seth Farooq and another pending before the learned Vlth Labour Court, were requisitioned for the purposes of satisfying myself in regard to the legality, propriety and correctness of the proceedings, particularly the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 20th September, 1981, rejecting the application made on behalf of the applicant, Saleem Butt, for declar ing that the complaint filed by Muhammad Ashraf stands infructuous and merits dismissal.

2. The complaint of Muhammad Ashraf was founded on the deci sion of the learned VIth Labour Court, dated 8th July, 1981, directing respondent Mushtaq Textile Mills, of which applicant, Saleem Butt is the Manager and Seth Farooq is a Director, to re‑instate the said Muhammad Ashraf with full back benefits. Against the said decision an appeal was preferred by Mushtaq Textile Mills to this Tribunal. The said appeal has been admitted to regular hearing and a Stay Order has been passed by this Tribunal in respect of the award of back benefits on the condition that the back benefits are deposited with the learned VIth Labour Court. Mr. Abdul Khaliq Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Saleem Butt, states at the Bar that the back benefits have been deposited with the learned Labour Court as directed by this Tribunal. In the meanwhile, respondent Muhammad Ashraf filed a complaint against Saleem Butt and Seth Farooq before the learned VIth Labour Court, which has taken cognizance of the complaint and has issued process against the applicant, Saleem Butt and Seth Farooq. As an appeal he has been preferred by Mushtaq Textile Mills against the decision of the learned Labour Court in which Stay Order has been issued by this Tribunal in regard to the award of the back benefits and further respondent Muhammad Ashraf has been re‑instated in service, in compliance with the decision of the learned Labour Court,, an application was filed on behalf of applicant, Saleem Butt, and Seth Farooq, for terminating the proceedings taken on the complaint of Muhammad Ashraf. This application, however, has been rejected, as already stated.

3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Khaliq Khan, who appeared for appli cant, Saleem Butt. I also heard respondent, Muhammad Ashraf, who appeared in person. It has been admitted by respondent Muhammad Ashraf that he has been re‑instated in service and is getting his correct wages, though he has not been given any specific work. I have repea tedly pointed out that except in certain special cases where the failure on the part of the employer to give work, to the aggrieved workman may amount to infringment of his rights because the nature of his employment requires constant handling of and practice in such work, such as flying a plane, driving a railway engine of special type etc. the Labour Courts cannot direct an employer to give any specific work or in fact any work to a workman, who has been ordered to be reinstated in service. As respondent, Muhammad Ashraf admittedly has been given by the mills an order of reinstatement in service and further is in receipt of regular wages from the mills, there has been a reasonable compliance of the deci sion of the learned Labour Court, dated 8th July, 1981, so far as the reins tatement of the said respondent is concerned, As regards the award of back benefits as already stated, an appeal‑to this Tribunal against the deci sion of the learned Labour Court has been filed in which a Stay Order has been issued by this Tribunal in regard to the award of back‑benefits. Furthermore, the back benefits have been deposited by Mushtaq Textile Mills with the learned Labour Court. In the circumstances, no non‑compliance of the decision of the learned Labour Court can be said to have been deposited by Mushtaq Textile Mills with the learned Labour Court. In the circumstances, no non‑compliance of the decision of the learned Labour Court can be said to have been committed on the basis of which applicant, Saleem Butt and Seth Farooq could be said to have committed an offence under subsection (8) of section 25‑A, I. R. O. Respondent Muhammad Ashraf himself states that he would not like to proceed, in view of the above circumstances in the complaint case against the appli cant, Saleem Butt and Seth Farooq.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would, in the exercise of the sun mote powers of revision of this Tribunal, quash further proceedings before the learned VIth Labour. Court based upon the complaint filed by respondent, Muhammad Asraf.

Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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