1999 PLP 451 (PLC)

2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved, it is intended to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Mr. Raja Shams‑uz‑Zaman submits that the learned Labour Court has not passed any order as to the back benefits. Mr. Faiz Mahmood submits that the order, impugned in the appeals was passed in presence of the appellants and their counsel and the respondent as well as their counsel. No objection or claim or request was made as to the back benefits. That seems to be an afterthought. In fact, after the passing of the order, they approached the respondent with a written application, which is reproduced as under:‑‑ This application was shown to Mr. Raja Shams‑uz‑Zaman, who admits the contents and signatures thereon after consulting two of his clients, who are present. Mr. Mahmood submits that there is even no indication as to the back benefits in the said application.

5. It appears that in reply to the notice, dated 27‑8‑1995, the respondent, seems to have immediately replied to the said grievance notice by their letter, dated 28‑8‑1995 denying the allegations of termination and calling them to attend the duty forthwith. This letter, dated 28‑8‑1995 was followed by another letter, dated 30‑8‑1995 wherein the allegation of termination was again denied and the offer attending to the duty was repeated.

6. In view of this position, there was no question of making any application under section 25‑A, of the I.R.O., 1969. They should have contacted the respondent. In the statement, dated 19‑9‑1998, made by the respondent, on which the impugned order was passed, it was submitted by the respondent that, "the respondent since has not terminated the applicant and the applicant has been absent from his duty without prior permission from the employer and they filed the above said application. However, we have no objection if the applicant joins his duty in terms of the Roster available with the employer in terms of the orders of this Honourable Court. It is matter of fact that such absence of the applicant is in contravention of the Labour Laws".

7. It appears that it was the apprehension of the appellants that an action may not be taken against them for remaining absent from duty.

8. In view of the clear and specific direction for attending duty, as contained in letter, dated 28th and 30th August, 1995, the learned Labour Court, was pleased to observe in the order, impugned before me that the respondent is barred to charge‑sheet on the ground of un-authorised absence. This was followed by an order of the Court that .the applicants are directed to join their duties from today. This order was passed on the same day when the statement was filed i.e. 19‑8‑1998 and on the very day, the appellants approached the respondent and filed an application for joining duty, referred to in para.4 (supra).

9. In view of the above, there was no question of passing any order for back benefits as it was not raised (which seems to have been passed as a result of mutual talk of the parties in the Court). In any case, I find no merit in the submission, made before me by the learned counsel for appellants for grant of back benefits. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Announced in open Court this the 31st?? day of May, 1999. H.B.T./286/K/Lab. (Trib.)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.