Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑257 and 245 of 1983, decided on 4th July, 1983.

‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑Before upholding dismissal order for insubordination or mis-behaviour it is necessary to decide if in reality misconduct was conducted‑Allegation of. use objectionable words in favour of superior‑Actual words alleged to have been used not disclosed ‑ Mis‑conduct in circumstances, held, not established‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits upheld‑Workman having admitted to have used objectionable words in circumstances, held, not entitled to back benefits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Ashgar Mahmood for Appellant. Khalid Farood for Respondent. Date of hearing : 2nd July, 1983.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 6th April, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby Muhammad Ihsan (hereinafter called the respondent) was directed to be re‑instated in service wihout back benefits. The Punjab Urban Transport Corporation' (hereinafter described as the appellant) has in its appeal challenged the direction of re‑instatement in service, whereas the respondent has claimed back benefits in his appeal. As both the appeals arise from the same impugned decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he misbehaved before the Works Manager and used contemptuous language. The actual words uttered by the respondent were not given either in the charge‑sheet or in the admission Exh. R‑13. Firstly, the respondent described the said as unintentional, in the admission so it does not amount to confession and secondly since the actual words were never disclosed, this cannot be said if in reality the words amounted to misbehaviour, insub ordination or indiscipline. Before dismissing a person, and upholding a dismissal order for insubordination or . misbehaving, it is necessary to decide if in reality misconduct was committed. Unless what actually the respondent said is known it cannot be decided that actually he committed misconduct. The respondent admitted what he actually had said but he did not admit the commission of any misconduct. If what he said does not amount to misconduct, it will not be said that be admitted any misconduct. As no misconduct was established, the learned lower Court rightly directed Coed the re‑instatement of the respondent. where does n do appear to be a good ground of awarding back benefits. Sine‑. the respondent admitted the use of objectionable words in favour of his boss which may or may not be amounting to misconduct, he is not entitled to back benefits. In order to keep him under control, he must be given a pinch.

3. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the two appeals and dismiss them in limine.

A, E, Appeals 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.