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.
Petition No. RI-406 of 1985, decided on 23rd December, 1985.
---Ss. 7 & 15--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3-a)--Jurisdiction of Authority--Deducted or delayed wages Workman convicted on charge of theft and dismissed from service--On appeal against conviction order case remanded to criminal Court and said Court charge-sheeting workman under S.411 Penal Code, 1860 for keeping stolen property in his possession knowingly that same was stolen Case property not produced hence workman acquitted by criminal Court- -Workman re-instated but intervening period treated as leave due- Workman claiming wages for such period and Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 accepting claim and order of Authority upheld by Labour Court in appeal--Plea in Revision before Labour Appellate Tribunal that (i) matter was not within jurisdiction of Authority as amount of wages for disputed period could not be delivered by Authority but by Labour Court, and (ii) workman was not honourably acquitted as such could not claim wages for intervening period--Plea rejected and revision dismissed--Held: (i) Authority has to deliver deducted and delayed wages and for doing so period of deducted wages comes under jurisdiction of Authority, and (ii) since case property was not produced at trial and got identified to be stolen property it could not be said that it was stolen property and accused had kept same in his possession with that knowledge and accused having not been proved to be connected with alleged offence it could not be said that offence stood proved hence it was not an acquittal on account of any doubt but honourable.
Sh. Abdul Jabbar for Petitioner.
Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 18th December, 1985.
The decision, dated 3-8-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7 Gujranwala in its appellate jurisdiction and the order, dated 12-12-1984 passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act are reported to be wrong.
2. The facts are that the respondent was convicted by the criminal Court for the theft of 18 pieces of copper from the vehicle of Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Wah Cantt. He was sentenced to 2 months R.I. and a fine of Rs.600. On account of his conviction he was dismissed from service. On appeal the case was remanded and thereafter, the Magistrate charge-sheeted him under section 411, P.P.C. and by the second order acquitted him on the ground that the case property had not been produced. On account of his acquittal the respondent was re-instated in service by the appellant and so far as the period for which the respondent had remained in jail and remained out of duty is concerned, it was treated as leave due. The respondent moved an application under section 15 to the Authority for wages for the period he remained out of job.
3. The only point argued before me is that the acquittal of the respondent was not honourable, so he was not entitled to wages for the period he remained dismissed. In the revision petition, however, it is contended that the amount of wages for the disputed period could not be delivered by the Authority but by the Labour Court. The objection as it stands is not that the Authority has to deliver the deducted and delayed wages and for doing so in period of deducted wages comes under consideration and discussion. It is not said that the wages claimed were not deducted, so the Authority had jurisdiction to give direction to pay delayed or deducted wages.
4. So far as this objection is concerned that the respondent was not honourably acquitted, it is without force. The ground of acquittal was that the case property (stolen property) was not produced. In a case under section 411, P.P.C. as was against the respondent, the accused is to be proceeded against to have kept in his possession the stolen property knowing it to be stolen. So it is to be proved that some property was recovered from his possession and that the same was a stolen property. If the property is not produced at trial and got identified to be stolen property, it cannot be said that it was a stolen property and the accused had kept it in his possession with that knowledge. Where the accused is not proved to be connected with the offence, it cannot be said that the offence had been proved. So in such cases acquittal is not on account of any doubt but for lack of proof and thus such an acquittal is nevertheless an honourable one. So the respondent was rightly awarded wages for the period he remained out of job on account of the illegal dismissal order.
5. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed.
A. E.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer