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. HYD‑239 of 1984, heard on 15th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Dismissal from service wrongful and set aside by Labour Court‑‑Workman employed elsewhere during intervening period‑‑Labour Court refusing back benefits‑‑Plea that workman received higher emoluments elsewhere hence should refund difference‑‑Plea, in circumstances, held, involved impossible proposition‑‑Order of Labour Court upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
Abdul Ghani for Appellant.
Bashir Awan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 15th October, 1985.
This is an appeal from the order of Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dated 23‑9‑1984, whereby he re‑instated the appellant but refused to give him the back benefits.
2. The facts are that the appellant worked as an Accounts Assistant with the respondents. On 5‑4‑1983, he received a letter that he had released the payment of one Gohram on taking illegal gratification of Rs.500. 'He was called upon to explain why the disciplinary action may not be taken against him for misconduct. However an enquiry was ordered and two Enquiry Officers of the mills, namely Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Saleh Memon were appointed to look into the matter. The appellant was dismissed on 31‑5‑1983.
3. On the first part of the appeal, it is not resisted to the appellant as regards his re‑instatement with the respondents. The only point is to be considered is whether the back benefits cold be given to the appellant or not.
4. The impugned order contains paragraphs 9 Which is reproduced as under:‑‑
"After setting aside the dismissal order the next point which possess for consideration is whether the applicant could be entitled to back benefits. Mr. Bashir has referred to a certificate produced as R/2 and submits that the applicant is already in service of Army Welfare Sugar Mills Badin and in view of his employment in another mill during this period he would not be entitled to back benefits. The applicant has not questioned the genuineness of this document and has also admitted before me today that he is working in the mill referred to above. In this admitted situation, I am of the view that the applicant would not be entitled to the back benefits."
5. the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he got higher pay with the Army Welfare Sugar Mills, Badin as such difference be paid to him. Besides he pointed out that Rs.500 as payment of medical bills is pending with the respondents, therefore, he prays for the payment of this amount.
6. The back benefits are to be paid when he remains unemployed during the period his case is pending before the Labour Court. The fact is that he was employed. The question is that if he was getting higher emoluments then, the appellant should be a eked to refund the amount of higher pay to the Army Welfare Sugar Mills, Badin. This is impossible proposition. As regards the medical bills, he could re‑agitate this payment in the mills concerned. The appeal is, therefore, 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