1994 PLP 216 (PLC)

It was alleged that the petitioner was working as an over lock Machine Operator with the respondent ‑for 4 years and in spite of his devoted performance was not being paid properly. When once again on 2‑11‑1989 the respondents were requested to give a square deal he was removed from employment, and without assigning any reason therefore. He had therefore sent a grievance notice which was returned to him, and later filed the petition before the Labour Court.

2. The respondents in their reply statement maintained that the petitioner, to reproduce their own words "absconded" from his job after taking. the monthly salary on the 2nd of November. It was denied that the grievance notice had been received by them and in that view of the matter the petition was not competent. It went on to say that the number of employees was only

14. That was an additional ground for the petition being thrown out

3. The petitioner apart from himself examined one Ahmed Ali and Imran Ahmed a supervisor working with the respondents appeared on their behalf.

4. The Labour Court found all the material issues in favour of the petitioner and allowed the petition as referred to earlier resulting in this appeal.

5. There is a variation in the number of employees at different stages and also in the Registration Certificate under the Factories Act. The Directors did not care to appear and Imran Ahmed could hardly furnish all the particulars. They have also not produced either the Attendance or the salary register in support of their assertions in regard to the number which as already mentioned has gone on varying. The respondent had hardly any document or record which he could press into service.

6. The number of employees spoken to by the petitioner and his witness Ahmed Ali who admittedly was an ex‑employee of the respondent, seems to approximate with the truth. This number would certainly be more than

20. I agree with the finding of the learned Presiding Officer that there was no bar of jurisdiction on that count.

7. The grievance notice had been sent at the same address as to be found in the petition which had been served. It is said that the proper address was not Anarkali. It should have been Anarkali Society. It is much of a muchness. In the circumstances there is hardly anything to look askance at the finding that the service would be deemed to have been duly effected.

8. The case of the appellant is that after collecting his pay for the month of October, the respondent had made himself scarce. He had not heard from him at all till he had to face the proceedings before the Labour Court.

9. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why if the respondent had remained absent for more than 10 days, he had not been issued a show‑cause notice as to why proceedings should not be taken against him for his dismissal from service. To look into the direction would be in vain. And if for any reason the appellant wanted to terminate his service that had to be in accordance with law i.e. giving explicit reason for the same. That was not done. The order of re‑instatement will therefore, hold the field.

10. However the respondent had nowhere during the various stages of the dispute stated that he was jobless. In his cross‑examination he conceded that he was working with Tawakkal Garment from December 1990. It was because of this reason that the Labour Court had awarded him back benefits only from the date of the removal upto the date he started working with Tawakkal Garment.

11. In my humble opinion he will not be entitled to any back benefits at all, looking to the. principle laid down in Muhammad Bashir v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1991 SCMR 2087. The judgement in 1993 PLC 105 in which a different view was taken by the Supreme Court was earlier in time though reported after two years.

12. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. Orders accordingly. H.B.T./2254/Lb.S. Order accordingly.