Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR‑319 of 1981, decided on 20th March, 1984.

‑‑ Wages for un-availed leave‑Can be claimed on termination of service‑Labour Court awarding reinstatement‑Workman after re instatement, held, could not complain for being refused wages for un-availed leave‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (5).

‑‑ S. 38 (5)‑Contempt proceedings‑Punishment cannot be awarded without personal appearance of respondent‑ Personal appearance not ordered‑Tribunal, in circumstances, directing respondent to pay amount due to petitioner (workman) under order already passed by Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal instead of any punishment in contempt proceedings on petition of workman.

‑‑ Promotion‑No right‑Workman removed from service‑Removal order set aside by Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits except benefit of seniority and consequential promo tion‑Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal with back benefits also‑Workman reinstated but not promoted according to due seniority‑Petition for contempt proceedings before Labour Appellate Tribunal made for not being promoted‑Promotion, held, not a right‑Tribunal however directing employer to consider workman (petitioner) for promotion according to fixed criteria‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (5).

Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Petitioner.

Naveed Masud for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 21st February, 1984.

This is an application under section 385) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for proceeding against the respondents for contempt of Court for the non‑implementation of the decisions, dated 22nd October, 1977 of Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore and, dated 10th January, 1978 of this Tribunal. The petitioner was removed from service and was directed to be re‑instated by Labour Court No. 1 without back benefits, except the benefit of seniority and consequential promotion. On appeal this Tribunal awarded back benefits also. The petitioner has appeared as his own witness after filing his claim statement. In rebuttal Mr. Abdul Qadeer, Senior Manager, of Lahore has been examined.

2. Since the petitioner was allowed back benefits by this Tribunal vide its order, dated 10th January, 1978, he is entitled to it and non‑payment of the same amounts to contempt. According to the statement of the peti tioner, he has been paid arrears.

3. It has been argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the wages for the period he remained employed elsewhere. This point has already decided by my learned predecessor Mr. Justice M. Jamil Asghar on 10th January, 1978 by holding that, the petitioner was entitled to the wages of the said period. This order was got set aside and thus is binding upon the parties. I have no jurisdiction to say anything against the order of my learned predecessor.

4. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 6,885.45 as wages for un-availed leave. Such wages can be claimed on the termination of service and not, in the continuation of service. Since the petitioner stands reinstated, he cannot claim wages for un-availed of leave. The statement of claim is A‑11:1 The petitioner has been paid Rs. 52,D59 and the balance, according to the said document, is Rs. 52,508.45. Deducting from it Rs. 6,885.45, the balance payable comes to Rs. 45,623. The petitioner has requested that instead of awarding any punishment for contempt of Court, the respondents be directed to pay his dues. Even otherwise, no punishment can be awarded as the personal appearance of the respondents was not ordered, with the result that the proceedings were made in their absence. I accordingly,' direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 45,623 within one month of this order.

5. So far as the prayer of the petitioner with regard to the fixation of his seniority is concerned, since the question of his seniority did not come in question in this grievance petition, nor any specific direction was issued by the learned trial Court or this Tribunal, no direction in this present petition for contempt can be given. The petitioner, if be feels aggrieved, may seek judicial remedy separately. So far as his promotion is concerned, this is not a. right. However, he is entitled to be considered for promotion according to the criteria fixed by the respondents. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner may be considered for promotion.

A. B. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.