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. BR‑91 of 1984, decided on 20th August, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct of absence without leave‑No charge‑sheet served‑Service of show‑cause notice not established‑Application for leave proved to have been submit ted‑Dismissal order, in circumstances, held, illegal‑Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with full back benefits‑Grievance petition decided after about 2 years and 8 months‑Appeal before Appel late Tribunal decided after 6 months‑Employer, in circumstances, held, not to be burdened with payment of full back benefits‑Back benefits, in circumstances, reduced to 50% by Appellate Tribunal but workman allowed benefit of full yearly increments for period involved.
Muhammad Ramzan Butt for Appellants.
Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.
Dale of hearing: 15th August, 1984.
The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 1st February, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, directing the re‑instatement of the respondent in service with back benefits.
2. The facts are that the respondent after returning from casual leave for 13 days attended his duties for one day on 16th October, 1980 and applied for one month's leave, with effect from 17th October, 1980. It was allowed. On the expiry of the leave he did not turn up on 15th November, 1980. According to the appellant, no application for leave was received, but the case of the respondent is that he had been sending telegrams for leave.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has in arguments challen ged the decision of the learned lower Courts to the extent it allowed back benefits to the respondent. So far as the direction of re‑instatement is concerned, the service of show‑cause notice is not proved. R. W. 1 rather deposed that the show‑cause notice was not delivered to the respondent and had been brought back by Gammu with the report that the respon dent had gone to Faisalabad and had not been contacted and that on the asking of his boss Sanaullah he made false report to the effect that the respondent had refused to receive the said notice. Since no charge‑sheet was served, the order of dismissal was illegal. The factum of receipt ‑of telegram for leave too was proved. The copy of the telegram Exh. P‑2 shows that leave was applied for. So, no misconduct was committed. The direction of re‑instatement, therefore, is unassailable and probably the learned counsel for the appellant realising the weakness of the appeal has not stressed the point.
4. So far as back benefits are concerned the respondent has suffered much. For about two years and eight months, the grievance petition) remained pending. If it had been decided earlier, the respondent would not have suffered a lot. The appeal too is being decided after six months. The appellant has been burdened with the payment of full back benefits. So, in my opinion back benefits are liable to be reduced.
5. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the back benefits are reduced to 50%. But full yearly increments for the period the respondent remained dismissed shall be added to his pay from the date he reported for duty onward.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer