Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑399 and 415 of 1984, decided on 23rd February, 1985.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Dismissal for misconduct ‑ Charge‑sheet said to have been served‑Service of charge‑sheet not proved‑‑No enquiry, in circumstances, held, could be conducted in absence of charge‑sheet and reply thereto‑Dismissal order, held, vitiated and rightly set aside by Labour Court.

---Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Reinstatement ‑ Back benefits Impugned dismissal order found wrongful‑Back benefits are allowed not as a fine to employer but as compensation to worker‑Actual loss not proved by worker‑No question of compensation, in circumstances, held, would arise.

Zia Ullah for Petitioner.

Yousaf Hussain Dilawari for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 16th February, 1985.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 30th May, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby Riaz Ahmad (hereinafter to be called as the res pondent) 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. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. One Ali Ahmad was absent and the respondent had reported against him and suggested that his salary should not be charged. How ever, the salary of August, 1979 was sanctioned but was not disbursed to the absentee. It was paid to Liaqat Ali. The respondent too was charge‑sheeted and ultimately dismissed from service. The learned lower Court has rightly held that service of charge‑sheet was not proved. No postal or A. D. receipt was produced in evidence to prove the service. In the grievance petition and statement such a plea was taken, so the appellant should have proved 'the service of charge‑sheet. Without service of charge‑sheet and consideration of its reply no inquiry could be held. On account of non‑service of charge‑sheet the respon dent was caught unaware and thus could not defend himself. The dismissal order, therefore, is vitiated and was rightly set aside by the learned lower Court.

3. So far as the appeal of the respondent is concerned, he did not say that he, during the period of his dismissal, remained jobless, he was rightly denied back benefits. Needless to say that the employer has no ostensible source of information to know if his dismissed employee was earning something or not. So the worker. who claims back benefits should prove that he remained jobless. Back benefits are not delivered as a fine for wrongful dismissal but a compensation for the worker. So unless actual loss is proved, no question of compensation arises.

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

A. E.

Appeals 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.