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. FD‑105 of 1986, decided on 13th April, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Labour Court, jurisdiction of‑‑Punishment of worker for proved misconduct‑‑Discretion of employer to impose any punishment prescribed by law‑‑Labour Court could neither reduce or substitute any other kind of punishment nor could set it aside if in its opinion same was harsh.
‑‑‑S. 37‑‑Appeal‑‑Cross‑objections‑‑Recourse to cross‑objection can be had where case decided in favour of respondent in appeal but some points decided against him‑‑Impugned order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement to petitioner appellant but without back benefits‑ Petitioner in appeal claiming back benefits‑‑Cross‑objections by employer respondent, held, not proper remedy and same not having been brought within 30 days of delivery of impugned order could not be treated as appeal.
Appellant in person.
Mian Maudood Akbar for Respondent..
Date of hearing: 6th April, 1986.
The decision dated 6‑1‑1986, 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. On behalf of the respondent cross‑objections have also been lodged, which are being disposed of together with the appeal.
2. The allegation against the appellant for which he was dismissed from service was that he had remained absent without leave from 31‑12‑1983 to 22‑1‑1984. The plea taken by the appellant was that 31‑12‑1983 was his weekly holiday, so he went to Okara from some private business and fell ill there, that on 23‑1‑1984 he sent application for leave but no intimation was received and instead on 25‑1‑1984 notice of inquiry was served. It is mentioned in the inquiry notice that the charge‑sheet Exh.R.3 had been sent to the appellant on 14‑1‑1984. The learned lower Court has admitted that the appellant remained absent without leave for more than ten days and directed the re‑instatement for the reason that the punishment is harsh. I am afraid the Labour Courts cannot play the role of employers. In cases where misconduct is proved, it is the discretion of the employer to impose any punishment A prescribed by law and the Labour Courts cannot reduce the same or substitute another kind of punishment, nor can set aside the same if in its opinion the same is harsh.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has on the basis of cross‑objections prayed for the setting aside of the order of re‑instatement. Raising cross‑objections was not the proper remedy. Recourse can be had to cross objections in cases where the case has been decided in favour of the respondent, but some points have been decided against him. In the present case the grievance petition was B accepted and the respondent was directed to re‑instate the appellant. So, if the respondent was aggrieved against the 'direction of re instatement, he should have preferred an appeal. Cross‑objections cannot be treated as an appeal as they were not brought within 30 days of the delivery of impugned decision, but within thirty days of in-service of notice of appeal.
4. The appellant is lucky that the respondent did not prefer an appeal. Since the learned lower Court has found that the misconduct was duly proved, the appellant is not entitled to at least back benefits.
5. As a result, the appeal and the cross‑objections fail and are dismissed.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer