1987 PLP 681 (PLC)

‑‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal‑‑Cross objections can be filed by party in whose favour case was decided by Labour Court and only findings on some points are challenged reversal of which does not affect decision of lower Court‑‑Order of dismissal of worker set aside by Labour Court awarding re‑instatement without back benefits‑‑Workmen filed appeal challenging order of Labour Court to the extent of refusal of back benefits‑‑Employer challenging re‑instatement by way of cross objections‑‑Cross objections, in circumstances, held, did not lie and employer could have preferred appeal to challenge direction for re‑instatement‑‑Cross objections brought when limitation period for appeal had expired‑‑Law of limitation, held, cannot be circumvented in such manner and cross objection dismissed as not maintainable. Zafar Malik for Appellant. Javed Altaf for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1986. The appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 24‑3‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, whereby holding that the allegations made against the appellant did not constitute misconduct and they were guilty of violation of Rules and Orders, directed their re‑instatement in service without back benefits. On behalf of the respondent cross‑objections have been filed which are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.

2. The learned lower Court has permitted the respondent to complete departmental action on the allegations made against the appellants and has disallowed back benefits on the ground that on technical grounds the appellants have been reinstated in service. This finding is wrong that on a technical ground the appellants succeeded. If the allegations do not constitute misconduct, it is not merely a technical defect but no offence punishable with dismissal or removal from service has been committed. Since the respondent hash yet to take some action in respect of the charges levelled against the appellants, no order with regard to back benefits may be passed in this appeal. I, therefore, modify the impugned decision of the learned lower .Court and direct that question of back benefits would depend upon the result of the action to be taken by the respondent.

3. So far cross‑objections are concerned, they do not lie. Cross objections can be filed by the party in whose favour the case ha been decided and findings on some points are challenged, reversal o the decision of which does not affect the decision of the lower Court. In the present case the main dispute was decided against the respondent, inasmuch as the appellants were directed to be reinstated in service. So the respondent could have preferred appeal and no cross objections to challenge the direction of re‑instatement. It appear that the period for bringing appeal had expired, so when the appellant preferred appeal, the respondent brought cross‑objections. The la of limitation cannot be in this manner circumvented. The cross objections, therefore, are not maintainable.

4. The appeal and cross‑objections stand disposed of as observed above. A.E./330/Lb.P. Appeal/cross‑objections dismissed.