1998 PLP 54 (PLC)
MUBARIK MASIH Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUJRANWALA through Administrator
| Citation | 1998 PLP 54 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Chairman |
| Parties | MUBARIK MASIH Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUJRANWALA through Administrator |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 54 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 54 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 54 (PLC) (MUBARIK MASIH Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUJRANWALA through Administrator). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Adeeb, Representative for Appellant.
- Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th March, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 38
Labour Court on basis of record found that although services of workman were terminated because of his absence from duty without leave, yet he was neither served with charge nor made to face enquiry, and thus, was condemned unheard
Such action of respondents was against all principles of natural justice
Even if workman's conduct was open to exception and his work was unsatisfactory Labour Laws dictated that all legal formalities should have been gone through and accused workman should have been afforded opportunity of leaving before his dismissal from service
Labour Court, however, had refused back benefits
Workman not satisfied with his reinstatement claimed back benefits in appeal
Workman had not been able to establish his entitlement to back benefits to the satisfaction of Appellate Court
Bad conduct and poor performance of workman had attributed to the action initiated against him and it was magnanimous approach by Labour Court that kind treatment was meted out to him and he was re-instated in service
Workman had no entitlement to be awarded back benefits, therefore, his such claim was rejected.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Muhammad Adeeb, Representative for Appellant. Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 11th March, 1997. The appeal is directed against the decision dated 7-5-1994, rendered by the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, rejecting Mubarik Masih's claim to back benefits, and allowing his prayer for reinstatement in, service.
2. Mubarik Masih had been employed as Sanitary Worker, and he was removed from service on 1-9-1989, which order, it was pleaded, was verbal and had not been preceded by any enquiry or charge-sheet, or show-cause notice. The Corporation, however, maintained that it had been continuously receiving complaints against conduct and work of Mubarik Masih, whose services were terminated, on observance of all the legal formalities. The Chief Sanitary Inspector as R. W. 1 furnished testimony to that effect; and Mubarik as P.W. I repeated his averments embodied in his grievance petition.
3. The learned lower Court came to the conclusion that although services of Mubarik Masih were terminated because of his absence from duty without leave, he was not served with a charge-sheet and made to face an enquiry and, thus, was condemned unheard and that this was against all principles of natural justice. Even if his conduct was open to exception and his work was unsatisfactory, and a substitute had been appointed, as averred by the Corporation, to clean the dirt from the area, the Labour Laws dictated that all legal formalities should have been gone through and the accused worker should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before being asked to quit service or before his dismissal from service.
4. A perusal of the record leads me to the conclusion that the reasoning recorded and the findings given by the learned lower Court are same and sound, and on valid premises he has been refused back benefits. He has laid a claim to his arrears of salary/wages, but has not been able to establish his entitlement to back benefits, to the satisfaction of this Court. Bad conduct and poor performance of the accused had attributed to the action initiated against him, and it was a magnanimous approach by the learned Labour Court that a kind treatment was meted out to the official and he was reinstated in service. I would not differ with the finding that the employee had no entitlement to award of back benefits; and I proceed to dismiss the appeal, although with no order as to costs. A.A./891/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.