Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑1069 of 1978; decided on 8th March, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑--

--‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 37 ‑‑Petition against termination .of service‑Ter mination sought to have been made due to closure of factory‑Peti tioner originally appointed for head office of establishment though sub sequently made to work in factory‑Re‑instatement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Ahmad Din for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 1st March, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 7th November, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re‑instatement was accepted with back benefits.

2. The services of the respondent were terminated on 28th October, 1974 on. the plea that the Match Factory. had been closed. He was also informed that he was not entitled to arrears of pay.

3. This is admitted that at the time the Match .Factory was closed, the respondent was working as accountant in the said branch but the dispute between the parties is whether the respondent was employed as accountant for Match Factory, of the appellant or for the branch where gas appliances were manufactured. The case of the appellant is that the respondent was employed for Match Factory but it is not supported by the appointment letter sent to the respondent. Even P. W. 1 has admitted that this fact is not mentiotle4 in the letter, The appellant said in his statement that he was made to work for a month in the main office and then was transferred to the Match Factory. Since in the appointment letter it is not mentioned that the respondent had been appointed for the Match Factory and in the beginning the appellant was made to work in the main ‑office, the inference is ir resistible that he was employed for Al‑Noor Industries and not for Match Factory.

So far arrears are concerned, only verbally it was stated by P. W. 1 that all dues had been paid but no receipt on record bearing signatures of the respondent in token of receiving his dues has been brought on the record. So this also does not stand proved that .dues have been paid. The learned lower Court therefore rightly directed the re‑instatement of the respondents) with back benefits.

There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed ex parte.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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