Find a Lawyer

Revision No.FD‑369 of 1985, decided on 22nd January, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Jurisdiction of Authority‑‑Termination of service, legality of‑ Not within jurisdiction of Authority‑‑Authority while determining gratuity cannot go behind termination order.

S.M. Hamid Ali for Petitioner Muhammad Ashraf, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1986

Order dated 29‑5‑1985 passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the order, dated 1‑9‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad are reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The respondent is the widow of Barkat Ali, deceased employee of the petitioner. The respondent brought petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of gratuity of her deceased husband amounting to Rs.5,430. The services of Barkat Ali, deceased, were terminated by the petitioner on 24‑11‑1981 as stated by R.W‑1 before the learned Authority. The Authority calculated gratuity including the period from 24‑11‑1981 upto the last when the deceased died observing that the termination of services was not legal as no charge‑sheet was given and no inquiry was held. The learned Authority was aware of the legal position that it had no jurisdiction to go behind the order of termination of services, so observed that it was not probing into the order of termination but was holding that the deceased was in service of the petitioner at the time of his death. Needless to say that without saying that the order of termination of services was not legal, the deceased could not have been treated in service at the time of his death. The learned Authority had no jurisdiction to go behind the order of termination of services but could include the period of service prior to 23‑11‑1981 only and not after that. The learned lower appellate Court did not advert to this aspect of the case and thus erred in upholding the order of the learned Authority. It appears that this defect in the order of the learned Authority was not pointed out to the learned lower appellate Court. There is no data on the record to calculate gratuity for the period upto 23‑11‑1981, so there is no other alternative but to remand the case. This is noteworthy that no material is on the record to show, nor this is the case of the respondent, that the order of termination of services of the deceased had been set aside by some competent authority.

3. As a result, the order of the learned Authority and that of the learned lower appellate Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Authority for the calculation of the gratuity in the Light of the observations made above.

A.E.

Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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