Find a Lawyer

Revision No. FD‑179 of 1984, decided on 12^th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Ad interim injunction‑‑Workman alleged to have caused imposition of surcharge due to non‑deposit of electricity bill in time and thus punished for recovery of alleged loss from pay Rs. 1,000 per month due to negligence‑‑Recovery order challenged in grievance petition alongwith application for stay order‑‑Labour Court remarking prima facie that a fine equal to three paisas per rupee from pay only could legally be recovered‑‑Petitioner thus having an arguable case‑‑Balance of convenience also in favour of petitioner because no inconvenience likely to occur to employer in case of deferment of recoveries‑‑Order of Labour Court restraining employer from making deductions from pay of petitioner pending decision on grievance petition, in circumstances, held, did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in suo motu powers of revision by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Revision‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3‑a).

Malik Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 9th July, 1984.

The order dated 2‑6‑1982 restraining the petitioner from deducting Rs.1,000 per mensem from the pay of the respondent has been challenged in this revision.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he retained the electricity bill for Rs. 2,64,869 which was payable upto 15‑7‑1981 with the result that the petitioner had to pay a surcharge of Its, 25,936.83. After charge‑sheeting and holding an enquiry, the amount mentioned above is being realised from the pay of the respondent at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month. The said order has been challenged by the respondent in the petition lodged under section 25‑A in which on his application for stay the impugned order has been passed. The charge is of negligence and carelessness which is not a misconduct. The learned lower Court has correctly remarked that prima facie a fine equal to three paisas per rupee from the pay could be deducted. The respondent, therefore, has an arguable case. The learned lower Court has rightly observed that so far no question of workman is concerned it will be decided after receiving evidence. Obviously balance of convenience goes in favour of the respondent. He cannot, before the final decision of the case, conveniently pay Rs.25,936.83 at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month. His total emoluments are only Rs.1,600. After the deduction of A Rs.1,000 only Rs.600 are left which prima facie are not sufficient in these hard days to allow the respondent to make both ends meet. On the other hand, no inconvenience can be caused to the petitioner by deferring the recovery of the amount till the decision of the main case. Likewise, no monetary loss is likely to be suffered by the petitioner by the postponement of the recovery till the final decision of the case. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity for which the exercise of suo motu powers of revision be considered necessary.

3. As a result, the revision is dismissed in limine.

A. E.

Revision 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.