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. KAR-582 of 1983, decided on 9th October, 1983.
Ss. 25-A & 38 (3)-Grievance petition against dismissal---Labour Court awarding re-instatement temporarily and directing fresh inquiry-Order of Labour Court appealed against and sought to be suspended till decision of appeal to extent of holding fresh inquiry on grounds (1) Labour Court could not order fresh enquiry on same charge while awarding re-instatement and (2) balance of convenience lies m favour of appellant-Both pleas rejected-Labour Court, held, in circumstances, could order fresh enquiry and appellant in case of acceptance of his appeal may be awarded back benefits if he was out of employment as a result of fresh enquiry hence plea of balance of convenience held, not correct.
Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Pakistan and others 1962 P L C 362; Steel Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Sherzamin and others 1968 S C M R 355; Muhammad Arshad Khan v. J & P Coats (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi and 3 others 1977 P L C 83; Syed Mukhtiar Hassan Khan and 2 others v. Pun lab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another 1980 P L C 985; Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court No. 2 and others P L D 1980 S C 507 and Mahmood Shah v. Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. and Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal 1982 P L C.,365 rel.
Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.
Mahmood A. Ghani for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 4th October, 1983.
The appellant after a domestic enquiry was held against him, was dismissed from the employment by the respondents. He served the respon dents with grievance notice and the grievance having not been redressed, he filed an application under section 25-A, I. R. O., before the learned Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, for reinstatement and back benefits. The learned Labour Court, vide its order, dated 3rd October, 1983, reinstated him temporarily and directed fresh enquiry to be held against him. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal alongwith a stay application praying for restraining the respondents from holding a fresh enquiry against him. The appeal was admitted and a notice was ordered on the said stay application, This order disposes of the stay application filed by the appellant against the respondents, restraining them from holding fresh enquiry against the appellant.
2. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are three-fold; firstly, that the appellant shall be materially prejudiced, in case the enquiry is held by the same Enquiry Officer as ordered by the learned Labour Court, secondly, that the learned Labour Court was not competent to order fresh enquiry on ordering reinstatement of the appellants, and thirdly, that the balance of convenience would also not lie in favour of the appellant in the circumstances of the present case.
3. I have heard the learned Advocate for the appeaant, Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned representative for the respondents, and have also gone through the material affidavits and documents filed on behalf of the parties in support of their respective contentions.
As regards the first contention, the learned representative on behalf of the respondents has contended that he has changed the enquiry officer and has filed an affidavit in that respect. Admittedly, there is no more contest on behalf of the appellant in that regard. So far the second contention is concerned, the learned representative on behalf of the respondents has contended that the learned Labour Court was competent to order fresh enquiry on the same charge-sheet while ordering reinstatement of the appellant. Reliance in that respect has been placed on the authorities of A the Supreme Court in, the cases of Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Pakistan and others (1), Steel Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Sherzamin and others (21968 S C M R 355), Muhammad Arshad Khan v. J & P Coats (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi and 2 others (31977 P L C 83), Syed Mukhtiar Hassan Khan and 2 others v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Labore and another Punjab Labour Court No, 2 and others (5 P L D 1980 S C 507) and Mahmood Shah v. Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. and Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal (61982, P L C 365). So far the third conten tion with regard to the balance of convenience is concerned, in case the appellant succeeds in appeal, the fresh enquiry whatever its result may be shall lose its force and the appellant may be awarded the entire back bonefits in case he is out of employment in consequence even of a fresh enquiry, In the circumstance, it would not be correct to say that the balance of convenience would not lie in favour of the appellant in case a fresh enquiry as ordered by the learned Labour Court is held against him. Accordingly, I do not find force in any of the contention raised on behalf of the appellant.
4. The stay application is, therefore, dismissed.
A. e. Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer