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.
Appeals Nos. LHR‑524 and 534 of 1985, decided on 19th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(1)‑‑Badli Conductor of Road Transport Corporation‑‑‑ Becomes permanent if works for 183 days or more intermittently within twelve months‑‑Termination of such Badli Conductor after requisite service‑‑Order of Labour Court directing re‑instatement, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑ Petitioner stating that he remained jobless during intervening period‑ Back benefits also allowed.
Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Petitioner.
S. M. Kaleem for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1985.
The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 15‑8‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore directing the reinstatement of Nazeer Ahmad (hereinafter to be called as "the respondent") without back benefits. The District Manager, P.R.T.C. (hereinafter to be described as "the appellant") has challenged the direction of reinstatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. As both the appeals arise from the same order, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The appointment order of the respondent has not been brought on the record. The appellant being the employer has in his possession the appointment order. According to the statement of the respondent, he was terminated after one year and four days. According to him, he worked for two hundred and seventy‑two days. A Badli Conductor becomes permanent if he works for 183 days or more intermittently within twelve months. The oral evidence of the respondent has not been rebutted by the appellant. RW‑1 did not say that the respondent did not work for more than 183 days. The learned lower Court thus rightly directed the reinstatement of the respondent.
3. The respondent has been wrongly disallowed back benefits. He stated that he remained jobless after his services were terminated since 1 he remained jobless, he was ready and available to serve the appellant, but was prevented on account of the illegal order of his termination from service. So, he is entitled to back benefits.
4. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and accepting the appeal of the respondent, he is allowed full back benefits.
A. E. Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer