Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. QSA‑474 of 1974, decided on 30th April, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Reinstatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Petitioner stating to have remained jobless since termination‑‑Termination found not sustainable‑‑Back benefits disallowed by Labour Court on grounds that petitioner was responsible for delay in disposal of petition Adjournments sought by petitioner for reason that his counsel had been arrested‑ Adjournment requests, held, genuine hence back benefits could not be dis‑allowed‑‑Petitioner failed to make alternate arrangement to engage a new counsel‑‑Back benefits to extent of 50%, in circumstances, allowed by Appellate Tribunal.

Muhammad Ikram for Appellant.

Fazal Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24th April, 1985.

The decision, dated 19‑7‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits.

2. The ground given for disallowing back benefits is that the appellant was responsible for the delay in the disposal of the case. This ground is not made out from the record. The counsel for the appellant namely Mr. Muhammad Ikram had been arrested and for this reason the appellant had been making requests for adjournment. These were genuine requests for adjournment. The appellant stated in the statement that he remained jobless since the time of his removal from service, he was, therefore, entitled to the back benefits. At the same time the appellant is not entitled to full back benefits, since he did not make any alternate arrangement to engage a new counsel after his counsel had been arrested. The appeal is, therefore, partly accepted and the appellant is allowed 50 back benefits.

A. E. Orders accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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