Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. JM‑179 of 1982, decided on 6th April, 1983.

W‑‑‑ Ss. 15 & 17‑Deducted wages‑WAPDA employee‑Arrested after raid in criminal case of corruption‑Suspended‑Acquitted by criminal Court in corruption case‑Suspension period treated as leave due and allowed only 50% of wages ‑‑Depriving an employee of wages of suspension period, in circumstances, held, not justified and amounted to punishment and could not be awarded without show‑cause notice-Order of Authority allowing deducted wages; in circumstances, upheld by Labour Appellate Tribunal.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Petitioner.

Khalid Ahmad and A. Rashid Malik for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 3rd April, 1983.

The appellate decision dated 25th May, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi has been chal lenged in this revision, whereby accepting the appeal of the respondent the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 1^st February, 1981 was set aside.

2. The appellant was raided and was arrested while receiving illegal gratification. He was suspended. Ultimately he was acquitted. The res pondent reinstated him but treated the period of suspension as on leave due, with the result that the petitioner lost half of the wages of the said period. During suspension he had been receiving 50% wages under the rules. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act allowed the deducted wages amounting to Rs. 16,000 plus one time compensation totaling Its. 32,000.

3. The learned lower appellate Court has applied rule 8 of WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1966 framed under section 18 of WAPDA Act of 1958.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that rules of 1966 have been repealed by the rules of 1975, therefore, the learned lower appellate Court wrongly applied rules of 1966. The objection is well founded but it makes no difference as regarding suspension there is no difference between repealed and new rules. This is not the case of the respondent that any domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner before or after he was acquitted by the criminal Court This is also not the case of the respondent that any explanation was called or notice to show cause was given before suspending the petitioner or before disentitling him to the wages for the period of suspension. Firstly there is no provi sion in WAPDA rules that if a criminal case is registered or if an employee is arrested in any criminal case of corruption, he can be suspended. So only for the purpose of enquiry suspension can be ordered. Apart from it, if on account of being arrested, one has been suspended by no stretch of imagination he can be justifiably deprived of the wages for the period of f suspension to case he has been acquitted by the criminal Court. Depri ving an employee from the wages of suspension period would amount to punishment which cannot be awarded at least without giving show‑cause notice. So if the petitioner was to be deprived of the wages for the suspension period in spite of the fact that he had been acquitted by the criminal Court, he should have been first proceeded against departmen tally.

5. The case on behalf of the petitioner was not properly conducted from the very beginning. It was not contended in the petition that the order of suspension was not got extended after the expiry of every three months. Since such an objection was not raised, the responded had no opportunity to meet it, 6. For the reasons given above, I hold that deduction was illegal and unjustifiable. This aspect of the case missed the notice of the learned lower appellate Court. So this is a fit case for interference. I, accord ingly, accept the revision and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower appellate Court, uphold the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.

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.