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. LHR‑355 of 1984, decided on 11th November, 1984.
--‑‑S. 35‑Territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court‑Court of locality where part of cause of grievance arose also has jurisdiction‑ National Bank employee serving at Faisalabad‑ Impugned order issued by Head Office at Lahore‑Labour Court at Lahore, in circumstances, held, also had jurisdiction.
‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑D---Jurisdiction of Labour Court in case of Bank employee‑Wage Commission Award‑An award for purpose of Ordinance including S. 25‑A‑Labour Court, held, competent to redress wrong done to Bank workers by infringing rights guaranteed by such award.
Javed Altaf for Appellant.
Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th November, 1934.
The decision dated 6th May, 1984 passed by the leaned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby punishment of stopping of increment for two years and disallowing the wages for the period he remained suspended was set aside and he was allowed consequential benefits.
2. There were two allegations of misappropriation of money. According to charge‑sheet Exh. P. 1, the respondent is alleged to have received Rs. 1,500 but entered the amount in duplicate receipt as 150 only and that he received Rs. 637.50 but entered the amount in duplicate receipt as Its. 37.50 only. The respondent was punished holding that he had during the enquiry admitted the misappropriations. A perusal of the statement of the respondent made before the Enquiry Officer in question and‑answer form shows that he was not shown the duplicate receipts, therefore, he said that without seeing the said documents he could not say if he had executed the same or not. No evidence was produced to prove that the respondent had issued the duplicate receipts and entered the amounts in them as Rs. 150 and Rs. 37.50 instead of Rs. 1,150 and Rs. 637.50, respectively. So the charge was not established.
3. It has been argued that Faisalabad Labour Courts and not Labour Court No. 2, Lahore had territorial jurisdiction. The argument has no force. Where part .of cause of grievance arises the Courts of that locality to have jurisdiction. The order of awarding punishment was passed by Head Office, Lahore which is Exh. P. 8 and thus Court No. 2 tool was competent.
4. The other point raised is that the Wage Commission Award being the Award of the Commission, only the N.I.R.C. had jurisdiction and not Labour Courts under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969. This argument has been advanced in various other bank's cases and I have repelled the same. Section 38‑D of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is a complete answer to such an objection. It says that the1 decisions of the Wage Commission are the award of the Commission and all the provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 would apply, to such an Award. Now section 25‑A is one of the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and it authorises the Labour Courts to redress the wrong done to the workers by infringing rights guaranteed to them by any settlement, award or law. As the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 apply to the decisions of the Wage Commission by virtue of section 38‑D the Labour Court are competent to grant relief.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance petition was time‑barred, inasmuch as the punishment was awarded on 13th May, 1979 but the grievance petition was lodged in December, 1981. The respondent had preferred departmental appeal that was decided on 19th July, 1981. The respondent stated in his statement before the learned lower Court that he bad received the information about the rejection of his appeal on 10th August, 1981. This statement was neither challenged in cross‑examination, nor controverted in the evidence produced in rebuttal. So from the date of 10th August, 1981, the grievance notice and the grievance petition are within time.
6. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer