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‑317 of 1983
Appeal No. LHR‑328 of 1983
Appeals Nos. LHR‑317 and 328 of 1983, decided on 11th July, 1983.
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Impugned dismissal order found not sustainable‑Petitioner not stating that he was not gainfully employed during dismissal period‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified in awarding re‑instatement without back benefits.
Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant.
M. A. Hamid Awan for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 9th July, 1983.
The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 16th May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby Amanat Ali (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. The Packages Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re‑instatement, whereas the respondent has claimed back benefits in his appeal. As the two appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent applied for leave without pay on the plea that his mother was ill and there was none except him to look after her. He was treated as absent and dismissed. No intimation of the rejection of leave was sent to the respondent, nor he was called upon to resume duty. The respondent was not knowing that he was being treated as absent, therefore, he did not turn up. He was thus wrongly dismissd from service. He was not afforded any opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses as no note is given that opportunity was given. This defect too was in itself sufficient to set aside the order of his dismissal. The learned lower Court, therefore, was justified in accepting the grievance petition of the respondent. Back benefits have not been allowed to the respondent for the reason that he did not state that be was not gainfully employed during the period of his dismissal. In spite of such ground for not allowing him back benefits, the appellant has not filed any affidavit with the appeal to the effect that he was nowhere gainfully employed during the period of dismissal. So he is, therefore, not entitled to back benefits.
3. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the two appeals and dismiss them in lemine.
A. E. Appeals dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer