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.
Appeal No. MN 72 of 1984, decided on 31st March, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Inordinate delay in announcement of judgment by Labour Court‑‑Judgment announced bout a year and a half after hearing of arguments‑‑Back benefits lowed for whole period reduced by Appellate Tribunal by one year.
Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Appellants.
Sh. Abdul Sattar for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 12th March, 1985.
The decision dated 31‑1‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with 50 per cent back benefits.
2. The respondent was an Engine Driver. He became hard of hearing and was got medically examined. He was referred to Carrian Hospital, Lahore. The report was that he was hard of hearing by one ear. D. M. O. asked the respondent to bring hearing aid apparatus which the respondent failed to do. He is alleged to have become absent and was thus removed from service without holding any inquiry. He was, however, given show‑cause notice on 20‑4‑1976 to which he submitted reply dated 26‑4‑1976. Vide order dated 13‑9‑1979 he was removed from service. It has been argued that the inquiry was not necessary. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any rules on the point. Since major penalty was imposed holding of inquiry was necessary. The respondent being a poor man could not have purchased hearing aid apparatus for testing only. If the apparatus was not available with the D. M. O. then the respondent should have been referred to Mayo Hospital or any other expert who had that apparatus. Of course if some competent doctor had recommended the apparatus and had reported that with the help of the apparatus the respondent was fit for the post of a driver and then the respondent had not purchased the apparatus and had become absent, he may have been punished. The order of re‑instatement is, therefore, correct.
3. So far as back benefits are concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that about a year and a half of hearing the arguments the learned lower Court decided the case and has included that period also for delivering back benefits. This is true that judgment was announced with inordinate delay. If within a short time of hearing full arguments the judgment had been announced the appellant would have been saved from paying the back benefits for the period spent by the learned lower Court for announcing the judgment.
4. The appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, it is ordered that back benefits for a period of one year may not be paid.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer