Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑47 and 58 of 1985, decided on 23rd February, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Reinstatement‑Back benefits ‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑ Alleged misconduct not established ‑‑ Petitioner not stating that he remained out of job during dismissal period --Back benefits, held, are given to compensate worker for not earning his livelihood and if working gainfully, he has to account for it to his employer‑Back benefits, in circumstances, held, rightly dis allowed by Labour Court while awarding reinstatament.

Zia Ullah for Appellant.

Yousaf Hussain Dilawari for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 16th February, 1985.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 18th December, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby Muhammad Hanif (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits: Punjab Urban Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. As both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of to gether through this single judgment.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that disbursement of the pay of one Ali Ahmad had been stopped due. to his absence and the appellant got his salary paid to one Liaqat Ali. The charge was not established as the witnesses examined in the inquiry did not support the case. They did not say that the respondent had got the salary of Ali Ahmad paid to Liaqat Ali. That they deposed was that after the payment was made to Liaqat Ali, the respondent said that Liaqat Ali, was willing to refund the money and that the same may be received and the matter may be brushed up. This does not mean that the respondent had got the salary paid to Liaqat Ali. This is apparent that the respondent wanted to save the service of Liaqat Ali but not that he had played any active part in the payment of the salary of Ali Ahmad to Liaqat Ali. So the respondent was rightly directed to be reinstated in service and there is no scope to interfere with the direction of reinstatement.

3. So far as the appeal of the respondent is concerned, it too has no force, inasmuch as he did not say that he remained out of job during the period of his dismissal. Back benefits are delivered to compensate the worker for not earning his livelihood. If he had been working gainfully, he has to account for it to his employer if he claims back benefits from him.

4. As a result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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