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‑281 of 1981/Pb., decided on 29th January, 1983.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑S. O. 15 (1)‑imposition of fine‑Fine to be limited to 3 paisas per rupee of wages‑Bus conductor charged for depositing amount of income late by 2 days‑His commission amounting to Rs. 385.40 deducted‑Deduction of commission, in circumstances, held, amounted to imposition of fine and accused, in circumstances, held further, entitled to deduct amount of his commission from income Dismissal from Service on account of depositing less amount of income by deducting amount of his income, in circumstances, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.
Muhammad 1qbal Khokhar for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing,: 22nd January, 1983.
This appeal arises from the decision dated 25th February, 1981 passed by the learned ‑ Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service was accepted with back benefits.
2. The respondent was a conductor. On account of depositing the income of 4th October, 1979 not on the same day but on 6th October, 1979 his four days' commission 'was forfeited. It is alleged by the respondent that this order of forfeiture was not conveyed to him. He was on 25th November, 1979 deputed to conduct the bus in the fair of Pakpatten Sharif and worked for four days. He when deposited the commission deducted from it his commission of four days amounting to Rs. 385. The commission of the driver was also included in it. The case was reported to Police. The police recovered the amount but did challan the respondent. The respondent was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held against him which culminated in his dismissal.
3. The learned lower Court has reinstated the respondent on the grounds that no information about the forfeiture of four days' commission was given to him, that no opportunity to explain why be not fined was given and that the fine was without jurisdiction. This is not correct that the information about the forfeiture of commission was not given. On 29th November. 1979 the amount was repaid as it was short by Rs. 385.40 and the appellant was informed that four days' commission had been ordered to be deducted but in spite of it the respondent sent Rs. 2,058 deducting Rs. 385.40. So he had the knowledge of order of deduction. This is also wrong that no opportunity to show cause was given. His explanation was called for depositing the income of 4th October, 1979 by 6th October, 1979. However, the punishment of fine cannot extend to Rs. 385.40. According to Standing Order 15 (2) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, fine of three paisas per rupee of wages payable could be imposed for a misconduct. The fine of Rs. 385.40 was much in excess of the rate mentioned above. The forfeiture of four days' commission A amounted to a fine. The order of imposition of fine was, therefore, illegal and the respondent was entitled to deduct the commission from the income. The respondent was, therefore, rightly reinstated.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.
A. E Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer