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. MN‑507 of 1983/Pb., decided on 23rd May, 1984.
‑‑S. 25‑A‑Reinstatement‑Claim of back benefits‑Order of re instatement passed without any sufficient evidence that employee had applied for leave‑Since reinstatement was ordered on technical grounds, grant of back benefits declined.
Appellant in person.
Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 16th May, 1984.
The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 2nd October, 1983 to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. The appellant was arrested and sent to judicial lock up under section 307, P. P. C. He was marked absent and was ultimately dismissed after holding an ex parte enquiry. The learned lower Court has not given any reason for disallowing back benefits.
3. The very order of reinstatement was passed without any sufficient evidence that the appellant had applied for leave. The information sent by the appellant from jail to the effect that he bad been arrested was not caused to be produced in evidence. Exh. P‑1 is not that application but it was addressed by the appellant to the jail authorities after he returned for veri fication that he had sent an application to the respondent. The endorsement A of Exh. P‑2 of the jail authorities does not show if full particulars of the under‑trial prisoner were given sufficient to trace out the detenu. This too is not known if any request for the grant of leave was made in the applica tion or not. Endorsement Exh. P‑2 rather shows that previous application sent from jail was only an information.
4. So this is not a fit case for the grant of back benefits at least.
5. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.
M. Y. M.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer