Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 716 of 1982, decided on 13th December, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) ‑ Re‑instatement ‑ Back benefits ‑ Bank employee‑Charge for long absence‑Notice issued directing him to resume duty immediately instead of within seven days as per requirement of para. 236 of First Wage Commission Award‑Notice, in circumstances, held, not valid‑Termination of service, in circum stances, held, technically defective‑Re‑instatement without back benefits awarded by Labour Court, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant.

Mian Khurshid Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 29th November, 1983.

The decision dated 22nd November, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.

2. Service of the appellant where terminated under para. 234 of the first wage Commission's Award on the offer of one month's pay in lieu of notice. The reason was that the appellant had remaind absent without leave. The learned lower Court has disallowed back benefits for the reason that the appellant has been re‑instated on account of technical defects only. Para. 236 is meant for cases of long absence. The present 'one was too a case of long absence but the procedure given in para. 236 was not followed. Before terminating the services notice of absence is to be given calling upon the absentee to report on duty within seven days of the receipt of notice and notice is to be sent by registered post with A/D receipt. If the employee concerned fails to report on duty within seven days, his services can be terminated. Although this was a case of absence yet provisions of para. 236 were not adhered to and this is a technical defect.

3. Cross‑objections have been raised but after the dismissal of the respondent's appeal, there remained no occasion to raise the same objections, the respondent can ask for not allowing back benefits to the appellant but cannot challenge the order of re‑instatement. The appellant has failed to establish the plea of illness. No medical certificate has been brought on the record. So his absence was without just cause and thel only ground for which he succeeded is that notice required by para. 236 was not issued. As a matter of fact a notice of absence had been issued which is Exh. P. 1 but instead of being asked to report for duty, within seven days, he was asked to resume duty immediately. It was thus not a nolice as required by para. 236. As the appellant has been re‑instated only on a technical ground, he has been rightly disallowed back benefits.

4. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Cross‑objections are accepted to the extent of disallowing back benefits to the appellant.

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.