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‑469 of 1982, decided on 4th May, 1983.
‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Right of employer‑Dismissal order set aside by Labour Court on technical grounds of defective enquiry awarding re‑instatement without back benefits ‑Employer, in circumstances, held, not debarred from making fresh enquiry without permission of Court‑Plea that since back benefits were not allowed fresh enquiry could not be made‑Rejected‑Employer. held, cannot be deprived of holding fresh enquiry if charges still stand‑Grievance petition against conducting fresh enquiry, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court ‑ Industrial Relations Ordi nance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑[1976 P L C 605 ; 1976 P L C 786 ; 1982 P L C 487 and 1981 P L C 739 held not applicable].
1981 P L C 928 and 1983 P L C 247 rel.
Naeem Sultan Butt for Appellant.
Saleem Baig for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 20th April, 1983.
This appeal emanates from the decision, dated 6th August, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed in limine.
2. The appellant was proceeded against and after an enquiry held. he was dismissed. He challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court and was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits as the appellant had succeeded on technical grounds, The respondent did not challenge the order of re‑instatement and instead started fresh enquiry into the same charges. This attracted the appellant to bring the grievance
petition from the dismissal of which this appeal arises.
3. The only point to be considered is if the permission of the Court to hold fresh enquiry was necessary and without such a permission the employer is debarred from starting fresh enquiry, when the Court has found that the enquiry was defective. Learned counsel for the .appellant has argued that since back benefits were not allowed, fresh enquiry cannot be made. Where charges have not been found to be proved or not held to be groundless and only on technical reason the order of re‑instatement has been recorded, the employee concerned is not entitled to back benefits. Even in cases where a worker has beep wrongly disallowed back benefits, the remedy is to claim back benefits in appeal, but on this ground, the employer cannot be deprived of holding fresh enquiry if charges still stand. There is no law or at least the learned counsel has not shown me any law, settlement or award which may have guaranteed any right to the appellant that fresh enquiry into the charges, where they are alive, cannot l6e made. Needless to say that a grievance petition can be made if any right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award has been infringed. The learned counsel has cited some authorities such as 1976 P L C 928, 1976 P L C 786, 1982 P .L C 487 and 1981 P L C 739, but in these rulings no specific point was involved whether an employer is debarred from making fresh enquiry in cases where Court has not given permission. In 1981 P L C 605 Supreme Court held that it is the right of the employer to make fresh enquiry. The same view has been taken byi Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench in 1983 P L C 247. As ttl was not shown to the learned trial Judge that there was any right guaranteed to the appellant by any law. settlement or award, the petition was rightly dismissed in limine.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss the same. Present appellant only.
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