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.
Petition No. D. G. Khan 1 of 1984, decided on 18th November, 1984.
‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a) ‑ Deducted wages‑Resignation‑Appointing Authority holding resignation of employee as not voluntary reinstating him without back benefits‑Arrears of intervening period refused Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 accepting petition under S. 15 of Act ibid and order of Authority upheld by Labour Court in appeal‑Appointing Authority while reinstating employee having stated that resignation was not voluntary, employee, in circumstances, held, compelled to remain out of service hence entitled to back benefits‑Orders of Authority and Labour Court upheld in revision by Labour Appellate Tribunal.
Abdul Majid Sindu for Petitioners.
Respondents in person.
Date of hearing : 12th November, 1984.
The order dated 15th May, 1982 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the order dated 27th November, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan in its appellate jurisdiction, are informed to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The respondent who was an employee of the petitioners resigned from service. His resignation was accepted. He, thereafter, applied for reinstatement: The appointing authority holding that the resignation was not voluntary reinstated the respondent without back benefits. The respondent applied for arrears but was refused finally on 25th June, 1976. He, therefore, brought a petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act to the Authority which accepted the same and the appeal before the learned Labour Court failed.
3. It has been argued that the petition being beyond three years was time‑barred. The contention is without force. Dues were finally refused by the petitioners on 25th June, 1976. The petition under section 15 was lodged on 17th March, 1977, so was not time‑barred.
4. It has been argued that the respondent had in his statement made before the Authority said that he had in the departmental appeal prayed for reinstatement without back benefits, so the Authority wrongly allowed the petition. No doubt, it is so recorded in the statement made by the respondent before the Authority but copy of departmental appeal is not on the record. The employer while ordering reinstatement of the respondent did not say that the respondent had not claimed back benefits. Since in spite of the fact that in the statement of the respon dent it is recorded that he had not claimed back benefits in the depart mental appeal, the Authority allowed the benefits, the possibility cannot be excluded that in his statement some words such as without' may have been missed. Anyhow, since while ordering the reinstatement of the respondent, the employer said in the order that the resignation was not voluntary, the respondent was compelled to remain out of service, so he was entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result, the revision having no force is rejected.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer