Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. LHR‑72 of 1982, heard on 21st December, 1982.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) read with First Wage Commission Award, para. 258 (4) & (5)‑Bank employee‑Termination of service for misconduct‑No enquiry held into alleged misconduct‑Procedure in para. 258 (4) & (5) of First Wage Commission Award not followed -Labour Court awarding re‑instatement but not allowing back benefits on grounds that petitioner (employee) succeeding on technical grounds of non‑compliance of requisite procedure‑‑Order of Labour Court in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 21st December, 1982.
The appeal captioned emanates from the decision dated 22nd of November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2 Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated. He was not allowed back benefits on the ground that he had succeeded on technical grounds.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he bad remained absent for more than one month. Explanation of the respondent was called but thereafter no enquiry was held against him and his services were terminated under paragraph 234 of the First Wage Commission Award, 1975. Section 236 provides that if a person is absent, seven days' notice is to be given to him to resume duty in said period. Such a notice is sent by registered post with A. D., if he fails to appear within the time given in the notice he is deemed to have vacated his employment. The appellant did not proceed under paragraph 236 since explanation of the respondent was called, the management proposed to take action against him considering his absence as mis conduct. For misconduct the procedure is given in paragraph 258 (4) & (5) of the First Wage Commission Award. Admittedly that procedure was no followed the order of termination of the respondent, therefore, is illegal. The respondent in this circumstance was rightly directed to be re‑instated without back benefits.
There is no force in the appeal and we dismiss it.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer