Find a Lawyer

West Pakistan

‑‑S. O. 15 (3) (a)‑Misconduct‑Disobedience to order of superior Mere failure of compliance forthwith ‑ Would not amount to disobedience‑Workman directed to resume duty and resumed same after about an hour‑Merely because workman did not go forthwith, in circumstances, held, did not amount to misconduct or disobedi ence.

Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant.

Date of hearing; 20th February, 1983.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 20‑12‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.

2. The allegations against the respondent were that he had remained absent for 1i hours and disobeyed the order of his superior who had asked him to go and resume his duties. The learned lower Court has held that absence for Q hours was established but it did riot amount to misconduct and that disobedience of lawful order of superior had not been proved.

3. Learned, counsel for the appellant has argued that disobedience of order was proved, inasmuch as the respondent did not forthwith resume his work after he was asked so by his incharge and resumed duties after about an hour. ‑This is not the case of the appellant that when the respondent was asked by his incharge to go and resume duty he refused Simply because he did not go forthwith would not amount to disobedience. If the respondent had not at all resumed his duty after he was asked by his incharge, of course he would have committed misconduct. He was, therefore, rightly directed to be re‑instated in service.

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

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.