Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑161 of 1981, decided on 11th January, 1983.

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. O. 12 (3) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Termination of service on resignation ‑ Claim for dues‑No duty performed for some time before date of resignation on pretext of illness‑Claim for wages for such period, held, rightly disallowed by Labour Court.

M. Asghar Malik for Appellant.

Sajjad Hashmi for Respondents.'

Date of hearing : 18th December, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 12‑2‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was partly accepted and he was directed to be delivered wages for the period from 1‑2‑1977 to 7‑2‑1977 gratuity and pay for unavailed leave allowable under Standing Order 12(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. His claim about overtime wages was not allowed for the reason that he had failed to‑ prove the same.

2. It has been argued ‑by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant was unjustifiably closed, therefore, he could not prove his case. I do not find any force in this argument. More than sufficient opportunities were allowed to the appellant to produce evidence granting about 39 adjournments. This is not understandable how many more adjournments were required which could be sufficient for him to prove his case. On his request record was summoned and he was afforded opportunity to examine the same. It appears that the counsel for the appellant could not find any material from the record and instead of performing his duties as officer of the Court went on delaying the case by getting unnecessary adjournments and now in appeal complains that the case of the appellant was unjustifiably closed. Since the appellant did not give any overtime so nothing could be found in his favour in this respect from the record.

3. So far as the claim of the appellant with regard to wages from 8‑7‑1981 to the date of resignation is concerned, it was rightly disallowed since he did not perform his duties during the said period and instead of obeying the order of transfer absented himself on the pretext of illness. What was due to him was allowed to him by the learned lower Court. There is therefore no scope to interfere with the decision of the learned lower Court.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and 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.