Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.HYD-208 of 1983, decided on 13^th November, 1984.

---Ss. 37 & 38--Appeal--Cross-objections--Labour Court awarding re-instatement without back benefits--Appellant claiming back benefits also--Prayer as regards re-instatement being challenged, in circumstances, held, could not be made in cross-objections and such prayer could be made by separate appeal.

1984 P L C 468 rel.

---Ss.25-A & 38(3)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968),S.O.15(4)--Re-instatement- Back benefits--Dismissal for misconduct--Charge-sheet found time- barred--Labour Court holding proceedings -violative of mandatory provisions of S.0.15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968--Alleged fraud, in circumstances, held, not yet proved hence back benefits could not be refused--Appellate Tribunal awarding back benefit also.

1980 P L C 1007 rel.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Bashir Awan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 13th November,1984.

This appeal on behalf of Shaukat Ali, appellant, is filed with a limited grievance that the learned Labour Court while passing the impugned order did not award back benefits to him although he was re-instated.

2. The facts on record are that the appellant was initially recruited as a peon with the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., but was subsequently promoted to work as an Assistant. On 6-3-1982, the appellant was charge-sheeted on the grounds that while he was serving in the Garikhata Branch of Hyderabad, he indulged in bogus balancing of current and saving back accounts in colloboration with the incharge of the Branch in order to manipulate the concealment of fraud. Secondly, the appellant was charged for running his private business and was maintaining separate accounts in the said bank. He was dismissed after the enquiry.

3. In the reply, the management contended that the grievance application was I not maintainable and that fair and impartial enquiry was conducted and the appellant was rightly dismissed.

4. The learned Labour Court found that the charge-sheet was in voilation of Standing Order 15(4) and that the dismissal was found illegal. He, therefore, passed an order that the appellant be re-instated but he did not award the back benefits because the appellant did not succeed on merits. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents filed cross-objections and that the very re-instatement was bad in law and that the findings of the Labour Court were incorrect, therefore, he challenged the impugned order.

5. I have heard both the Advocates on the limited point. I need not go into so-called cross-objections because it was held in 1984 PLC 468 that prayer as regards re-instatement being challenged could not be made in the cross-objections and the respondents should have brought separate appeal against the re-instatement. So, I am dealing only with) the limited point of back benefits being refused to the appellant.

6. It was held by the Labour Court that Standing Order 15(4) namely informing the appellant in writing about alleged misconduct within one month was mandatory. Any deviation from this mandatory provision is fatal to the enquiry ending in the dismissal of the worker. The Labour Court has held that the charge-sheet and enquiry were bad in law and, therefore, it ordered re-instatement of the appellant. But the re-instatement was without the award of back benefits on the grounds that the appellant did not succeed on merits. The Labour Court meant that the appellant did not succeed on merits because his re-instatement is on the grounds that the charge-sheet was bad and his dismissal was illegal due to the contradiction of the mandatory provisions of Standing Order 15(4). To this, I am referred to an authority reported in 1980 P L C by Mr. Z. A. Channa, who on the similar grounds when the mandatory provisions of Standing Order 15(4) was not followed, held the appellant to be re-instated but awarded back benefits. By no stretch of immagination the back benefits which consists of pay should be denied to the appellant and he be deprived for several months of his legitimate pay. The case of fraud is not yet proved in any Court of Law nor it is investigated and the liability is fixed on the appellant. The learned counsel of the respondents stated in his arguments that several persons were involved and the responsibility is not pin-pointed as yet.

7. In the circumstances of this, I award back benefits which are ordered to be deposited before this Tribunal within 15 days.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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