Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. LHR‑585 of 1984, decided on 26th October, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 15(5)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Suspension‑‑Workman served with charge‑sheet and suspended‑‑Suspension order extended repeatedly on expiry of four days and no final order passed regarding punishment or otherwise and suspension period totaling to 28 days‑‑Workman filing grievance petition for setting aside suspension order‑‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on plea that suspension orders being for four days at a stretch and total period not exceeding four weeks same were legal‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal directing employer to pass some final order with regard to alleged charge.
Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Appellant.
Muhammad Saleem Khan for Respondent
Date of hearing 19th October, 1985
The order, dated 19‑9‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for setting aside the order of suspension for 28 days in total has been dismissed.
2. The appellant was served with a charge‑sheet and simultaneously suspended for four days. The order of suspension was extended on the expiry of every four days. The appellant remained under suspension for a total period of 28 days. It has been argued that an employee can be suspended for the purpose of inquiry and as no inquiry was held after service of charge‑sheet, the order of suspension is liable to be set aside. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the suspension orders were for four days at a stretch and the total period did not exceed four weeks, the orders are legal. So has been held by the learned lower Court. The matter does not end with the expiry of four weeks. Some final order has to be passed with regard to the charges levelled against the employee. If reply to the charge‑sheet is found satisfactory, the matter is to be dropped and the employee is allowed full wages for the suspension period minus what he has got as subsistence allowance. If he is found guilty after holding inquiry, some punishment is to be passed and finding given with regard to the suspension. It has not been shown if some final order one way or the other has been passed. The learned lower Court should have directed the respondent to pass some final orders.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is directed to pass some final order with regard to the charges levelled against the appellant.
A.E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer