Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GT‑696 of 1982, decided on 21st January, 1984.

‑‑ S. 37‑appeal before Appellate Tribunal‑Cross‑objection‑To be restricted to extent of appeal‑Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits‑Appellant claiming back benefits in appeal Respondent in cross‑objection seeking setting aside order of re‑instate ment‑Such prayer, in circumstances, held, 'could not be made in cross‑objection and respondent should have brought separate appeal for his prayer.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑----

------S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct Reinstatement‑Back benefits‑Non‑service of charge‑sheet‑Not a technical defect‑Workman on re‑instatement on such ground, held, entitled to back benefits.

----‑‑Ss. 25‑A (5) & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal for mis conduct‑Bus Conductor's case‑Charge of interpolation in tickets Labour Court to go into all facts of case‑Non‑production of tickets allegedly interpolated not produced before Court‑Not a technical defect but going to root of case ‑Refusal of back benefits by Labour Court while awarding re‑instatement, in circumstances, not approved by appellate Tribunal and appellant (workman), held, entitled to back benefits also because due to non‑production of tickets charge not established.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant.

Shuja‑ud‑Din for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th January, 1984.

The appeal titled above emerges from the decision, dated 11th Novem ber , 1982 recorded by the learned‑ Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala directing the re‑instatement of the appellant in service without back benefits. The appellant claim, back benefits in this appeal.

2. The respondent has filed cross‑objections also that are being decided alongwith the main appeal Prayer in the cross objections is to set aside the direction of re‑instatement. I am afraid such a prayer cannot be mad in cross‑objections. Since the order of dismissal was set aside, the respondent was an aggrieved party and should have brought appeal, if he wanted to challenge the order of re‑instatement. The respondent could only oppose the appeal to the extent of the claim of the appellant to back benefits.

3. This is wrong that only on technical grounds the appellant was directed to be re‑instated in service. On two grounds the order of dismissal has been set aside. One is that service of charge‑sheet was not proved, inasmuch as the postman was not examined and the other is that the tickets alleged to have been interpolated by the appellant were not produced before the learned lower Court. Non‑service of charge-sheet is not merely a technical defect because without the service of charge‑sheet, no enquiry can be held. The non‑production of the tickets alleged to have been interpolat ed is another serious defect. R.W. 1. no doubt, said that he himself produced the tickets in the enquiry but there is no statement of this witness on the enquiry proceedings. If tickets had been produced in the enquiry, they must have been on the file. Even if it be said that they were produced the case fails since they were withheld, from the Court. According to section 25‑A"(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance,‑1969 Labour Courts have to go into the all facts of the case. If the allegation of misconduct was that the forgery was committed by making interpolations in the tickets, the tickets were very important documents and without their production, it could not be h‑1d by any quarter that forgery had been committed. Non production or the tickets is not a technical defect but goes to the root of the case. In the absence of the tickets, the charge did not stand established.

So, the appellant is entitled to back benefits.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted the cross‑objections dismissed and the appellant allowed full back benefits.

A. E. Appeal 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.