Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD-436 of 1985, decided on 22nd January, 1986.

---S.25-A--Re-instatement--Back benefits--Termination for misconduct--No enquiry held--Audi alteram partem--Rule violated Not merely a technical defect so as to disallow back benefits.

Faiz Ahmad Khan for Appellant.

Naseem Sikandar for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th January, 1986.

The decision, dated 10-6-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.

2. The ground given for not allowing back benefits is that on technical ground the appellant had been directed to be re-instated in service. The respondent did not follow the procedure given in Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. This was not a mere technical ground. The rule of audi alteram partem was not followed and the appellant was condemned unheard as no inquiry was held against him. If an inquiry had been held after service of charge-sheet and getting reply to it, the appellant may have been able to show that he did not commit the alleged misconduct. The appellant asserted in his statement that since the date of removal from service he was jobless, so he is entitled to back benefits.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is allowed full back benefits.

A. E.

Appeal 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.