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.
Appeal No.HYD‑128 of 1983, heard on 11th November, 1984.
‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Petitioner workman' employed elsewhere during intervening period‑‑Back benefits for period of such employment deducted.
Raees Mushtaq for Appellants.
Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 11th November, 1984.
This is an appeal against the impugned order, dated 27‑3‑1983, passed by the learned Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad. By this order, he re‑instated the respondent, Noor Ahmad Panhwar and awarded him back benefits.
2. The facts are that Noor Ahmad Panhwar, the respondent, in this case, was an Accounts Assistant in the Dadu Sugar Mills till 29‑12‑1980, when he was dismissed from service. He was charge‑sheeted on 11‑I1‑1980 as he came to the office late by one hour and then signed the Muster Roll without permission of his Boss. He further misbehaved, insulted and demonstrated insubordination to his officer. The domestic enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed. A grievance application was made by the respondent and the same was decided on 22‑12‑1981. A fresh enquiry was ordered and he was re‑instated. In the fresh enquiry, he was once again dismissed and then a second grievance application came before the Labour Court who found the second enquiry to be partial and harsh and unjustified. He once again re‑instated the respondent with all back benefits.
3. I have heard the two counsels, Mr. Raees Mushtaq for the appellants and Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for the respondent. Mr. Raees Mushtaq stated that the second enquiry held by the management was fair and not partial. The learned Labour Court gave the reasons stating that the enquiry was not fair and unjustified. I have read and perused the record of the lower Court. I hardly disagree with it. After all only fault of the respondent was that he came late by one hour and then hot words were exchanged between him and the management. It was held by the lower Court that willful insubordination or disobedience is not proved. On the other hand, Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi argued that the poor man has been, made scapegoat of the vendetta of the management. He assigned many reasons to it. However, I do not find any fault with the order of the learned Labour Court and maintain the same. The appeal is dismissed.
4. As regards the back benefits, one letter is produced on the file of this Tribunal that the respondent was employed by Thatta Cement Factory as a clerk during the period from 1‑6‑1982 to 20‑4‑1983. The learned counsel accept the fact of his employment in the Thatta Cement Factory. It is also accepted that he joined the Thatta Cement Factory on 1‑6‑1982. Therefore, the back benefits from the date of dismissal i.e. 7‑3‑1981 to 31‑5‑1982, and for the period after his first dismissal i.e. on 29‑12‑1980 till his re‑instatement i.e. on 22‑12‑1981, he is entitled for the full back benefits, which are hereby ordered.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer