Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑195 of 1983, decided on 12th March, 1984.

‑‑ Retrenchment‑Termination of service due to abolition of post Road Transport Board competent to create or abolish post‑Order for abolition of post passed by officer not invested with such power Resultant termination, held, not sustainable‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits of affected workman, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal ‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Saleem Khan for Appellant.

Ch. Khalid Farooq for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 9th March, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was a machine operator. His services were termi nated on 3rd December, 1981 on the ground that the post held by him had been abolished. Admittedly, the post was abolished by the Chief Technical Officer. It was not proved if he had been delegated such powers. The Board is normally competent to create or abolish posts. If such powers have been delegated to some officer, he may abolish a particular post. Since the Chief Technical Officer was not proved to be a delegatee of the Board, he was not competent to abolish the post, with the result that the post will be deemed to be existing. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the respondent has been delivered two charge‑sheets for willful absence, the impugned order of termination in reality is an order of dismissal and as no enquiry was held, the dismissal is illegal. If it is shown that for good reasons the post was abolished, then the act of charge‑sheeting the respondent for absence would not be sufficient to set aside the order of termination.

3. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as only due to the in competency of the Chief Technical Officer, the respondent was re‑instated, he is not entitled to back benefits. I do not find any force in this argument. If the some officer of the appellant committed illegality, the respondent should not be made to suffer for it. If the competent authority had considered the question of abolition of the post held by the respondent, the possibility cannot be excluded that he may have come to a different conclusion. So, the respondent has been rightly allowed back benefits.

4. As a result, the appeal being without any force is disallowed.

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.