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-45 of 1981/Pb., decided on 30th June, 1982.
---S.25-A--Work man--Re-instatement--Back benefits, claim of Workman before termination of services neither charge-sheeted nor enquiry held against him nor given opportunity to produce evidence in support of his absence Workman remaining out of service, held, not for his fault but because his services having been terminated illegally--Workman re instated and allowed back benefits, in circumstances.
Shamim Ahmad Khan for Appellant.
Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 18th May, 1982.
The appellant was a Line Jobber in the respondent mills. His services were terminated on 31-1-1981 on the allegation of absence for more than ten days. The case of the appellant is that previously he was re-instated vide order, dated 13-11-1980 and directed to work in that day in the day shift, that he attended his duties up to 25-11-1980 but he was considered absent for more than ten days. Admittedly no charge-sheet was given nor any enquiry was made. The learned lower Court has not allowed back benefits for the reason that the appellant could not establish that he had been attending his duties during the disputed period. Question of producing evidence by the appellant does not arise because it was the duty of the respondent to prove that the appellant had committed misconduct by remaining absent without leave for more than ten days. If the appellant had been charge-sheeted, an enquiry held against him in which evidence had been produced to the effect that he remained absent during the disputed period and he given opportunity to produce defence only then the appellant could have been able to produce evidence in rebuttal. The appellant remained A out of service not for his fault but because he was illegally terminated without being charge-sheeted and holding enquiry against him. He is, therefore, entitled back benefits. I, therefore, accept the appeal and modify the order of the learned lower Court by allowing back benefits to the appellant.
M. Y. M.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer