1979 PLP 308 (PLC)
SHAMIMULLAH KHAN Versus AVERY SCALES LTD.
| Citation | 1979 PLP 308 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sand Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAMIMULLAH KHAN Versus AVERY SCALES LTD. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 308 (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 1979 PLP 308 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sand Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 308 (PLC) (SHAMIMULLAH KHAN Versus AVERY SCALES LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Shamsuz Zaman for Appellant.
- Syed Qamaruddin Hassan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25‑A‑Rc‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Allowed ordinarily when re‑instatement ordered‑Appellant worker however, proved to have remained absent without any leave‑Highly improper, held, to allow back benefits in such a case.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Qamaruddin Hassan for Respondent. This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court disallowing back benefits to the appellant despite the fact that the re‑instatement was ordered.
2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondents. He proceeded on one month's leave w. e. f. 10th May, 1976. The leave was extended from time to time up to 4th August, 1976 on fresh applications sent by the appellant. The leave granted on last occasion expired on 4th August, 1976 and, therefore, he was required to resume his duties on 5th August, 1976, but he remained absent without any intimation or applica tion for leave. Since he remained absent for more than 10 days without leave his service was terminated under Standing Order 12 (1) of the Standing Orders Ordinance by a letter dated. 16th August, 1976.
3. Aggrieved by this, he approached the Labour Court after service of grievance notice alleging that he had sent application dated 6th July, 1976, for extension of leave but did not receive any reply. So the termination of the service was illegal. He also pleaded that no inquiry was held before the service was terminated.
4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the contention of the appellant that he had sent an application for extension of leave and, therefore, he remained absent without leave but he entertained the view that since termination of service was without charge sheet or inquiry, it was illegal. He, therefore, ordered re‑instatement without back benefits.
5. The appellant aggrieved against the order disallowing back benefits filed the present appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Labour Court. Indeed, in the ordinary course when a re‑instatement is ordered, back benefits are allowed, but the present case is peculiar. It was proved that the appellant had remained absent without any leave and, therefore, it would be highly improper to allow back benefits to him. He is himself responsible because of his absence without leave and it is not the Management which had kept him back. The termination of service was vitiated on a technical, ground and not on merits.