Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-405 of 1978/Pb., decided on 30th June, 1982.

---S.25-A(5)--Workman--Re-instatement on technical grounds--Back benefits, claim of --Order of re-instatement made only on technical grounds not holding that allegations made not amounting to misconduct or that misconduct not proved at enquiry--Workman in such circum stances, held, not entitled to back benefits.

--S.25-A(5)--Work man--Re-in statement on technical grounds--Back benefits,. claim of--Workman seeking adjournments unnecessarily and delaying case for no .fault of employer--Workman, on re-instatement, in such circumstances, held, cannot claim back benefits as employer suffers to pay benefits for longer period without taking service.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant.

Syed Noor Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 20th June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 28-3-1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was accepted and he was ordered to be re-in-stated in service without back benefits. Back benefits were not allowed to him for the reasons that on most of the dates the appellant had sought adjournments and that on technical grounds he had been ordered to be re-instated. In the present appeal, the appellant demands back benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to refute the reasons given by the lower Court for not allowing back benefits. In cases where the order of re-instatement is made only on technical grounds and not holding that either the allegations made do not amount to misconduct or that the misconduct had not been proved at the enquiry, the workman concerned is not entitled to back benefits. In the present case since only on technical grounds, the appellant was re-instated, back benefits were rightly disallowed to him. The other ground given by the lower Court is also important. The appellant had been seeking adjournments unnecessarily according to the lower Court. If the case is delayed for the fault of the workman and he is allowed back benefits, the employer suffers because he has to pay back benefits for longer period without taking service. Learned counsel for the appellant has not put forward before me any cogent ground for allowing the appellant back benefits also. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly disallowed back benefits. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

M.Y.M.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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