Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1501 of 1982, decided on 11th January, 1983.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Re‑instatement ‑ Back benefits ‑ Grievance petition against .wrongful termination of service‑Dismissed by Labour Court on grounds of limitation‑Labour Appellate Tribunal accepting appeal awarding re‑instatement and refusing back benefits on grounds that petitioner‑appellant had been dragging respon dent in Civil Court and High Court instead of directly coming to Labour Court‑Order of Appellate Tribunal refusing back benefits challenged in writ petition before High Court on plea that it was obligatory upon Tribunal to allow back benefits after having accepted appeal and allowed re‑instatement‑To allow or refuse back benefits, held, within exclusive jurisdiction of Tribunal‑High Court, in circumstances declining to interfere in such order of Labour Appellate Tribunal refusing back benefits with reasons‑Writ jurisdiction‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9.

Syed Aqa Asif Jaffary for Petitioner.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Habib‑ur‑Rehman petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 22nd September, 1982 of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 3 to the extent of refusal to award back benefits to him, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief, are that Cotton Trading Corporation had appointed Habib-ur‑Rehman petitioner as Commercial Assistant. On the denationalization of the Cotton Ginning Factories, the petitioner stood transferred to the owner/occupier Malik Cotton Factory as a permanent workman. It was in the month of May, 1978 when respondent No. 1 stopped the entry of the petitioner in the premises of the factory. The petitioner sought his remedy before the Civil Court and then before the High Court in writ petition which was dismissed in limine. Thereafter, the petitioner served respondent No. 1 with a grievance notice and after the prescribed time, he moved grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, respondent No. 2 for his re‑instatement and back benefits. Since the petition was obviously time‑barred, therefore, the petitioner filed application for condonation of delay. These petitions were contested by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 ultimately dismissed the grievance petition as well as application for condonation of delay on 20th July, 1981. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 3, who while directing respondent No. 1 to re‑instate the petitioner disallowed the back benefits. Hence this petition.

3. It would be convenient to reproduce the reasons given by respon dent No. 1 for not allowing the back benefits which reads as:

"Since the appellants had been dragging the respondent in the Civil Court and then in the writ petition and did not come directly to the Labour Court, in the circumstances, they are not entitled to back benefits."

4. The learned counsel contends :‑

(i) That since the petitioner was re‑instated in service, it was obligatory upon the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 3 to allow back benefits to the petitioner.

(ii) That the reasons given by respondent No. 3 for not awarding the back benefits are not sound and cogent inasmuch as, the respondent No. 1 having appeared before the Civil Court on one date only, there was no justification for respondent No. 3 to bold that the petitioner had been dragging the respondent into litigation.

5. The learned counsel when asked by me to point out any, specific provision of law, whereby, the petitioner was entitled to receive back benefits on his re‑instatement as a matter of right or whereby the respondent No. 3 was under legal obligation to allow back benefits to the petitioner on his re‑instatement, the learned counsel could not refer to any specific provision of law making obligatory upon respon dent No. 3 to award back benefits to the petitioner. He has also not been able to cite any direct authority on this point. To my mind, it was within discretion of respondent No. 3 to allow or to refuse back benefits. Since it was in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal to allow or refuse the back benefits and he has refused the same with reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter while sitting in writ jurisdiction. Dismissed in limine.

A. E. 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.