Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SL‑229 of 1986, decided on 26th May, 1986.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Services admittedly terminated orally‑ Workman serving grievance notice and then filing grievance petition‑ Charge‑sheet served afterwards and written dismissal order passed thereafter‑‑Plea that in absence of grievance notice against written dismissal order grievance petition was not maintainable, held, would not be sustainable.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Wrongful termination‑ Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑ Earnings by cultivating workers own land, held, could not be deducted from back benefits.

Abdul Ghani for Appellant.

Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986.

The decision dated 18‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9 Multan has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. On the charge of absence from 19‑9‑1984 to 16‑10‑1984 the respondent was dismissed from service. Admittedly the respondent was on sanctioned leave from 17‑9‑1984 to 21‑9‑1984. He was admitted to hospital and was discharged on 25‑9‑1984. He on the said date applied for leave from 22‑9‑1984 to 5‑10‑1984 with discharge certificate. A.D. receipt is Exh.P.l. 6th and 7th were Moharram holidays. On 8‑10‑1984 the respondent is alleged to have been informed that he was no longer in service. Grievance notice was sent on 10‑10‑1984 copy of which is Exh.P.2. Charge‑sheet was given on 16‑10‑1984.

3. It has been argued that the grievance petition was brought before the respondent was charge‑sheeted and dismissed from service and as no grievance notice and grievance petition was brought after the dismissal order was passed, the learned lower Court wrongly accepted the grievance petition. The case of the respondent is that on 8‑10‑1984 he was informed by the General Manager that the respondent had been removed from service. This piece of evidence of the respondent has not been controverted. The General Manager did not come in the witness‑box to say that he had never orally informed the respondent that he had been removed from service. So, cause of grievance accrued to the respondent on 8‑10‑1984. The appellant in order to legalise his oral order of dismissal started proceedings afterwards. It has been argued that by service of charge‑sheet the respondent had come to know that he was still in service, therefore, he should have replied the charge‑sheet and joined the inquiry and should have challenged the written dismissal order after serving another grievance notice. The argument is without force. Charge‑sheet was served, inquiry notice was issued and inquiry was held after the respondent had already challenged the oral order of removal from service. This was done to cover the illegal verbal order of dismissal. Unless it is held that no verbal order of dismissal was conveyed to the respondent on 8‑10‑1984 the dismissal order passed subsequently cannot be legal. The un-rebutted statement of the respondent that on 8‑10‑1984 he was told by the A General Manager that he had been removed from service cannot be disbelieved. If the respondent had not been verbally told that he had been removed from service, there would have no cause to bring the grievance petition.

4. So far as absence is concerned, since the respondent had actually applied for leave submitting discharge certificate from the hospital, it stands proved that in reality he had fallen ill. He thus has been rightly directed to be re‑instated in service.

5. So far as back benefits are concerned, the respondent said that he had been doing labour and then cultivated his own land. What hell earned by cultivating his land cannot be deducted. Since actual period during which the respondent did labour and what he earned are unknown, the respondent is not entitled to full back benefits.

6. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, fifty per cent back benefits are allowed to the respondent.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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