Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑185 of 1984, heard on 4th February, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑‑Reinstatement ‑ Back benefits ‑ Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct of absence from duty without leave‑Workman on receipt of information of serious illness of son requesting for being relieved from duty and for permission to go home but his request not allowed and due to urgency work. man leaving without permission and ailing son dying next day‑ Labour Court exonerating workman from charge and awarding reinstatement but refusing back benefits on grounds that workman left duty without permission‑Leaving duty without permission, in circumstances, held, not deliberate and wilful but was due to urgency duly brought to notice of authorities by worker hence refusal of back benefits not warranted and same allowed by Appellate Tribunal.

Khadim Hussain for Appellant.

Iqbal Afridi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 4th February, 1985..

This is an appeal in respect of the back benefits of the appellant vide order, dated 8th July, 1984, the Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi had declined to give back benefits to the appellant though he found that the appellant was wrongly dismissed in the domestic enquiry and had ordered his reinstatement.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, on 26th January, 1983, received an intimation that his son was seriously ill, therefore, he demanded that he should be immediately released from duty and be permitted to go to home. One, Mr. Hashim did not allow him on the pretext that one Shahabuddin was incharge of the section and he would do it. Due to the urgency of the illness of his son, Moula Bukhsh, the appellant, went away without permission. It is alleged that there were hot words exchanged by Moula Bukhsh.

3. The son of the appellant died on the next date. In the impugned order of the learned Labour Court he exonerated the appellant Moula Bukhsh from the charge and ordered his reinstatement. The only question is whether he would be entitled to the back benefits considering the circumstances of the case. The learned Labour Court declined to give him the back benefits because he went without permission.

4. Judging the circumstances and the urgent call of his dear son lying on death bed, the natural impulse in the mind of the appellant. would‑be to leave without properly obtaining the permission to attend his son. The circumstance is that he did inform the relevant authorities and the authorities knew that his son was ailing. It was not deliberate and wilful on the part of the appellant to leave without permission but there exists an urgency to render such help to his dying son as it was necessary. Under these circumstances, refusal so far the back benefits is concerned is not warranted. I allow this appeal and award the back benefits to the appellant to the extent of his basic salary which he said is Rs. 6951 per month.

Orders are made accordingly.

A.E

Find a Lawyer Near You

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