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. FD‑747 of 1979, decided on 24th March, 1982.
‑‑S. Os. 1 & 15(5)‑Suspension‑Held, can be made only for pur poses of enquiry and for a total period of 28 days.
(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑---
‑‑S. Os. 1 & 1.5 (5)‑Wrongful suspension‑Fresh cause of action‑Limitation‑Such suspension, held, is a continuing wrong giving rise to fresh cause of action barring limitation.
(c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑---
‑‑S. Os. 1 & 15 (5)‑Conclusion of suspension‑Grievance petition, lying of ‑Limitation‑On conclusion of suspension if order is challenged for purposes of wages, it is necessary that grievance petition is brought within prescribed period of limitation starting from termi nation of suspension order.
Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Appellant.
Talib Hussain, Representative for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 27th February, 1982.
This appeal arises from the decision, dated 7th October, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent challenging his suspension was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service, leaving the question of entitlement to the wages for the period of suspension to be determined by the competent authority.
2. The respondent was suspended vide order, dated 29th June. 1976 on the ground of a theft case having been registered against him. The respondent had challenged the order of suspension by a previous petition also, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the case was still being investigated by the police. After the investigation was completed, still the suspension order was continued, the respondent brought the grievance petition from the decision of which the present appeal arises.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the previous decision is res judicata upon the present case. I do not find any force in this argument. The previous petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the investigation of the case had not yet been completed by the police. Since now the investigation has been completed the respondent had rightly challenged the order again. Equally there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance petition is time -barred.
4. Learned counsel says that the suspension is not a continuing wrong Suspension can be made only for the purposes of enquiry and the total period of suspension is, according to Standing Orders 1 and 15 (5) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, 28 days only. Wrongful suspension is continuing wrong giving fresh cause of action to the person suspended o every day on which such an illegal order continues and in such cases n question of limitation arises. However, if after the conclusion of the suspension, the order is challenged for the purposes of wages for the period of suspension, it is necessary that within the prescribed period of limitation starting from the termination of the suspension order, the grievance petition be brought.
5. Since the suspension was against the provisions of Standing Orders 1 and 15 (5) it was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court. There is no force in the appeal, which 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