1977 PLP 317(2) (PLC)
MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER Versus MESSRS NEELI BAR INDUSTRIES, BUREWALA
| Citation | 1977 PLP 317(2) (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | IVth Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER Versus MESSRS NEELI BAR INDUSTRIES, BUREWALA |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 317(2) (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 317(2) (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the IVth Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 317(2) (PLC) (MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER Versus MESSRS NEELI BAR INDUSTRIES, BUREWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazeer Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
- Aqa Asif Jeffery for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Domestic enquiry admittedly a mere farce‑Workers further prejudiced in defence‑Workman, in circumstances, held, entitled to back benefits on re‑instatement.
Judgment & Decree
Appeals Nos. 250 and 294 of 1974, decided on 17th June 1975.
Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Domestic enquiry admittedly a mere farce‑Workers further prejudiced in defence‑Workman, in circumstances, held, entitled to back benefits on re‑instatement. Nazeer Ahmad Naz for Appellant. Aqa Asif Jeffery for Respondent. The above cited appeals have been filed by Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Umer Nawaz Workers against the orders of the learned Junior Labour Court, dated 2nd October, 1974 of similar import denying them the right of back benefits consequential on their re‑instatement in service. As the questions to be determined in both the appeals are of common nature, the present decision will dispose of both the appeals. The appellants have claimed only back benefits through their appeals by virtue of the domestic enquiry made against them having been held as farcical; both the appellants were called upon to face enquiry against the misconduct of having made a false report to the police regarding the abduction of some workers at the instance of the Management. The services of the appellants were terminated with one month's notice pay under Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 by way of leniency in face of a regular enquiry against a serious charge under Standing Order 15 (3) A. The learned lower Court was of the view that the Management bad no right to dismiss the appellants as the offence charge against them was not applicable under the Standing Order 15(3)A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in the present appeals and find that in the first instance it has not been controverted on behalf of the respondent Management that the enquiry made against the appellants was a mere farce and that they were prejudiced in their defence. 1t is of no avail to go into the question of the nature of the misconduct or the applicability of the charge under Standing Order 15(3) A of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The fact that the appellants were not given a fair chance of enquiry suffices to entitle them to re‑instatement with back benefits. No reasonable justification was made out in the impugned order for denying the back wages to the appellants when the termination order were held to be bad in law. The appeals are therefore accepted and the appellant directed to be paid their back benefits payable to them under the law from the date of their dismissal to that of re‑instatement on the basis of the order passed by the learned lower Court.