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.
Revision No. GA‑541 of 1983, decided on 22nd July, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 15 & 17‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision against order of Labour Court in appeal against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑Service benefits not paid by employer ‑ Authority directing payment of dues with one time's compensation ‑ Labour Court setting aside order regarding compensation‑No evidence produced before Authority that petitioner was ever asked to bring clearance certificate‑Employer withholding payment on grounds that clearance certificate was not produced by petitioner‑Evidence in circum stances, held, necessary to prove that petitioner was asked to produce such certificate‑Orders of Labour Court and Authority, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision and case remanded to Authority for re-decision regarding compensation after opportunity of evidence to parties.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner.
Shuja‑ud‑Din for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 17th July, 1984
The above‑captioned revision gives information that the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala dated 24th October, 1983 to the extent it disallowed the appeal of the petitioner and partly allowed the appeal of the respondent, is wrong and illegal.
2. The petitioner was terminated from service on medical grounds for being a heart patient vide order dated 2nd January, 1982 with effect from 3rd September, 1982. Upto the expiry of about six months he was not paid benefits of service whereupon the petitioner moved a petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act to the Authority under the said Act. It was allowed directing the payment of dues of Rs. 40,171 with one time's compensation. The respondent challenged the order in appeal that was partly allowed setting aside the order of one time's compensation. The appeal of the petitioner for ten times' com pensation was rejected.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since clearance certificate was not produced by the petitioner and he had not delivered the record of the respondent on his termination of service, therefore, the benefits were not paid and that the petitioner has been rightly disallowed compensation by the learned lower appellate Court.
4. The case of the respondent was not properly conducted before, the Authority. No evidence was produced to show that the petitioner was ever asked to bring clearance certificate. No details of the record, alleged to be in the charge of the petitioner was given, nor there is any evidence that he was asked to deliver the same. No doubt, there was an opportunity for the respondent to prove these facts before the learned Authority but due to the fault of the person how conducted the case, no proper evidence could come on the record. Instead of insisting upon the production of clearance certificate the respondent could very easily determine the liabilities of the petitioner, if any, and deducted the same from the dues instead of prolonging the matter. If nothing was due from the petitioner, then there could be no justification to demand clearance certificate. Needless to say that the clearance certificate was to be issues by some department of the respondent and not by some unconcerned person. Report could be invited from the department that had to issue the clearance certificate to avoid the liability of paying compensation. In the above circumstances, it appears necessary that opportunity be afforded to both the parties to produce effective and convincing evidence on the above‑mentioned disputed points.
5. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned orders of the Courts below to the extent they relate to the claim of the petitioner to compensation and the case is remanded back to the learned Authority for re‑decision of the said point only, after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on the said point. As there is no dispute between the parties about the actual benefits allowed by the learned Authority, the order of the Authority to this extent is kept intact and the amount may be disbursed to the petitioner, if he applies.
A. E.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer