Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 5023 of 1983, decided on 20th February, 1984.

---Art. 9--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 15(5)--Back benefits--Workman, re-instated on technical grounds--Held, entitled to back benefits.

Mukhtar Ahmad v. Commissioner, Lahore Division 1980 P L C (C.S.) 67; Niaz Ali v. Punjab Urban Transport Authority, Lahore and 3 others P L D 1983 Lah. 661; Pakistan through General Manager, P.W.R., Lahore v. Mrs. A.V. Issacs P L D 1970 S C 415 and The Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Services and General Administration, Lahore v. Syed Muhammad Ashraf 1973 S C M R 304 rel.

Ghulam Qadir for Petitioner.

Sh. Ezad Masood for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1984.

Khadim Hussain filed this petition under Article 9 of the provisional Constitution Order, 1981, against the order of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, dated 26-6-1983. The grievance of the petitioner is, that although his appeal was accepted by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, against the order of Punjab Labour Court No, , Gujranwala, he was not given the back benefits, which order was illegal and liable to be set aside.

2. There was allegation of misappropriation of Rs.3,010.93 against the petitioner. He was charge-sheeted and ultimately dismissed from service.

3. It was found by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore that neither the Enquiry Officer was appointed nor the charge-sheet was served by the competent authority. Another defect was also noted that it was decided to hold an enquiry without perusing the reply to the charge-sheet. Due to the above-mentioned technical faults, the appeal filed by Khadim Hussain was accepted. It was, however, ordered by the Appellate Tribunal that since the appeal was being accepted on technical grounds, Khadim Hussain was not entitled to back benefits.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after acceptance of the appeal, the order of withholding the back benefits, was without lawful authority, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on cases titled Mukhtar Ahmad v. Commis sioner, Lahore Division 1980 P L C (C . S .) 67; Niaz Ali v . Punjab Urban Transport Authority, Lahore and 3 others P L D 1983 Lah. 661; Pakistan through General Manager P.W.R., Lahore v. Mrs. A.V. Issacs P L D 1970 S C 415 and The Province of the Punjab through Secretary Services and General Administration, Lahore v. Syed Muhammad Ashraf 1973 S C M R 304.

5. The learned counsel for respondent took objection that the writ petition. had been filed with considerable delay and thus it was not maintainable. It was also contended that the Appellate Tribunal rightly held that Khadim Hussain was not entitled to back benefits as his appeal was accepted on technical grounds.

6. The learned counsel for respondent failed to point out any provision from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and The West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, that if the order of dismissal is set aside on technical grounds, the employee would not be entitled to back benefits. The position is otherwise in West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It is provided in section 15(5) of the Ordinance that if the workman is found not guilty, he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension and shall be entitled to the same wages as he would have received if he had not been suspended. The order of the Appellate Tribunal was not challenged by the respondent company.

The petitioner had explained in para. 7 of the petition that writ petition could not be filed earlier on account of the sickness of his counsel Ch. Abdul Qadir, Advocate. The writ petition was also signed by the said counsel besides Khadim Hussain petitioner. The delay in filing the writ petition stood explained.

For the reasons stated above and placing reliance on the aforesaid Authorities, I accept this petition and direct that Khadim Hussain petitioner was entitled to the back benefits, which shall be now paid by the respondent company.

M.A.K. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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