Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑805 of 1978, decided on 31st January, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 37‑Reinstatement‑Back benefits‑Workman dis missed from service on account of misconduct‑Re‑employed sub sequently and proceeded against on account of certain charges per taining to period of previous service culminating in dismissal from service again‑Grievance petition against dismissal accepted on legal grounds that action could not be taken for misconduct com mitted during previous service‑ Workman, in circumstances, held, not entitled to back benefits.

Ch. Sadiq Hussain for Appellant.

Zafar Saleem for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 24th January, 1983.

In the appeal captioned above the respondent had filed cross objection for claiming back benefits, but no finding was recorded on them while deciding the appeal. The respondent was dismissed from service but was re‑employed. Some of the charges were left over while taking action against the respondent. Sometimes after the re‑employment of the respon dent, proceedings were started and he was dismissed. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that since he was re employed and not reinstated, no action could be legally taken against him for the alleged misconduct which had not been made the subject matter of the previous proceedings. It was a legal point if after re‑employ ment action could be taken for misconduct, committed during previous service. The appellant fell into the error thinking that the action could be taken, therefore, the respondent was dismissed on account of previous acts done by him. In these circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits. The cross objections are dismissed.

A. E. 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.