Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2607 of 1984, decided on 25th March, 1985.

---S. 25-A-Termination of service---Re-instatement--Back benefits-Set off-Employer challenging award of back benefits to employee on latter's reinstatement on ground that employee was gainfully employed elsewhere during period he remained out of job and that his reinstatement was ordered for technical reasons-No finding available that employee was gain fully employed elsewhere and finding of Inquiry Officer silent on such question-Order of Tribunal showing that reinstatement was not for technical reasons but on ground that charges of misconduct not proved for reasons of vagueness of charges and order of termination found illegal---No justification, held, existed for withholding back benefits to employee in circumstances,

---S. 25-A - Reinstatement - Meaning-Reinstatement means reinstatement with full back benefits unless same withheld for specific reasons - Plea that back benefits should not be allowed coming in nature of a set off, justification, held, has to be provided by opposite party before back benefits can be with held, In absence of said justification, back benefits could not be withheld.

H. R. Haider for Petitioner.

Shaukat Ali Mehr for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing 25th March, 1985.

Aftab Ahmad respondent No. 1 was working as a line jobber when his services were terminated for misconduct on 24th August, 1982. He challenged the termination in the Labour Court but his petition was dismissed on 20th December, 1982. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal, however, has ordered the re-instatement of respondent No. 1 with full back benefits vide its order dated 23rd May, 1984. The employers have challenged the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in a constitutional petition. This petition was admitted to consider the question of back benefits only as the petitioners press for their petition only to that extent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners is of the view that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to back benefits as he was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period he remained out of job. It is also argued that where the reinstatement is for technical reasons the back benefits are to be withheld.

3. As regards gainful employment of respondent No. 1 even though the inquiry proceedings do mention that the respondent No. 1 was working in a factory outside but the findings of the Inquiry Officer are silent on this question. In the absence of any finding to the effect that the respon dent No. 1 was gainfully employed elsewhere the petitioners cannot no claim a set off against the back benefits. As regards the question whether the reinstatement has been ordered for technical reasons, a simple read ing of paragraph 3 of the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 23rd May, 1984 is enough to show that the re-instatement has been ordered on the ground that the charges of misconduct were not proved, for reasons of vagueness of the charges. In other words re-instatement has not been ordered for technical reasons.

4. Ordinarily a reinstatement means a re-instatement with full back benefits unless they are withheld for specific reasons. The plea that the back benefits should not be allowed comes in the nature of a set off and justification has to be provided by the opposite party before the back benefits can be withheld. In the absence of any such justification obviously the back benefits cannot be with held. In the present case the orders of termination have been found to be illegal. The petitioners have not shown why back benefits should be withheld. There is no justification, therefore to for issuing a writ in this case. The writ petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

M. Y. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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