Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1394/S of 1983, heard on 7th December, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service‑‑Employee re‑instated with full back benefits‑‑Appellate Tribunal while maintaining re‑instatement order awarding fifty per cent back benefits‑‑Where order of employer was illegal, employee, held, was entitled to entire back benefits‑‑Employee being jobless and confronted with starvation, was not interested in protraction of litigation‑‑Employer would not be prejudiced on account of prolonged litigation which could not be attributed to employee‑‑Reduction of back benefits to fifty per cent was not sustainable in circumstances.

Ch. Nazeer Hussain for Petitioner.

Ch. Asmat Ullah for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Date of hearing: 7th December, 1985.

Waheed Ahmad Kemal has filed this constitutional petition for the quashment of the order of the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, who had reduced his back benefits to the tune of fifty per cent.

2. Waheed Ahmad Kamal the petitioner was employed as a Sales Supervisor in the Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation at Multan. He remained absent from duty for three days and also neglected to report the absence of his Store-man and was asked to make good the loss of fertilizer and was involved in a defalcation case. An inquiry was held by the respondent and after finding him guilty, he was dismissed from service on 1‑11‑1976. The said penal order was assailed before the learned Labour Court No. 9, Multan. The petitioner was re‑instated with back benefits: The respondent lodged an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. The order of re‑instatement was Maintained but the petitioner was awarded fifty per cent back benefits.

3. Ordinarily when the impugned order of the respondent was found illegal, then the petitioner was entitled to the entire back benefits. The learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore has observed that the litigation between the parties remained pending for 3lr years and the respondent was prejudiced by the imposition of full back benefits. This order appears to be arbitrary and against facts in the sense that the petitioner, who was jobless and was confronted with starvation was not interested in the protraction of the litigation and to say that the employer was prejudiced on account of the prolonged litigation does not appear to be a genuine notion. In the circumstances, the reduction of back benefits to fifty per cent is not sustainable and we, therefore modify the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and l allow the petitioner full back benefits. We, however make no order as to costs:

A.A. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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