2017 PLP 9 (PLC N)

ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, MEMBER.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.02.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.IV, Karachi. The appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment as well as the termination order dated 06.9.2007 passed by the respondent industries and the reinstate the appellant in service with full back benefits. Brief facts of the appeal are that the appellant is a permanent workman in accordance with the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and was employed with the respondent industries since 22.7.2006 as Turner and the respondent illegally terminated him from service on 06.9.2007 without any reason or given any show cause notice and or charge sheet or conducted any enquiry as provided under the labour laws, as such, the appellant served grievance notice upon the respondent industry and thereafter filed the grievance application before the learned Labour Court No. IV at Karachi. The learned Presiding Officer on 24.02.2010 reinstated the appellant in service with full back benefits. Respondent industries filed an appeal before this Tribunal which was registered under No. KAR-492/2010 and this Tribunal had passed a consent remand order on 19.10.2010 with direction to the learned Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, to pass afresh judgment after providing both parties to led their evidence. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. IV, Karachi had passed judgment on 26.02.2013 whereby the appellant was reinstated in service without back benefits. Notices were sent to the respondents industries through Bailiff as well as through T.C.S., but no one has appeared to contest the appeal filed by the appellant worker, as such this Tribunal had passed order to proceed ex parte against the respondents, therefore, appellant had filed his affidavit in ex parte proof. I have heard Mr. Muhammed Khursheed learned Representative for the appellant and he has also filed his written synopsis, while no one was appeared for and on behalf of the respondents. I have carefully gone through the record and proceedings of the case as well as arguments advanced by the learned Representative for the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was a permanent workman and was employed with the respondents industries since 22.7.2006 as Turner and he has drawn his last salary amounting to Rs.6,640/-. The record further shows that the service of the appellant has been verbally terminated on 06.9.2007 and in the first round of litigation appellant was reinstated in service with full back benefits. Appellant approached to the respondents for joining his duty and on refusal by the respondent industries, appellant wrote letters to the respondents on 04.3.2010 through TCS, dated 19.3.2010 through registered post, thereafter the appellant filed complaint before the learned Sindh Labour Court No. IV Karachi under Section 41(6) and (7) of IRA, 2010 on 31.3.2010. Respondents vide letter dated 12.4.2010 informed the appellant to join his duty as per judgment of the learned Labour Court. The record further shows that the witness of the respondent industries during his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court had deposed that:- "It is fact that after judgment of this Court allowing application of applicant the back benefits were not given to the applicant, nor he was allowed to join the duties. It is a fact that after filing of complaint by the applicant we sent letter to the applicant for joining the duties." On the point of gainful employment, the applicant during his cross-examination replied the question of the learned Counsel for the respondent industries as under:- "It is incorrect to suggest that I am working somewhere else and I am not jobless." In the first round of litigation bearing # 207/2007, the learned Labour Court in his judgment dated 24.02.2010 had observed that, "the claim of the respondent is that petitioner himself left the service and has been engaged somewhere else is not proved. The version of the petitioner has clearly stated that he is jobless despite his efforts to get livelihood and there is no rebuttal to that version. I, therefore, allow this petition and order that the petitioner be reinstated in service within 15 days from today with full back benefits." I have thoroughly gone through the orders of the learned Labour Court and found that in the first round of litigation it was ordered to reinstate the appellant in service with full back benefits and in the second round of litigation the learned Labour Court had not taken any assistance from the previous round of litigation and ignored the point of back benefits, hence for the reasons discussed above, I hereby allow the appeal of the appellant and set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court. Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service with full back benefits within thirty days from the date of this decision. HBT/6/SLT Appeal allowed.