1978 PLP 457 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 4th April 1977. DECISION These are cross‑appeals against the order of the Labour Court passed under section 25‑A,

1. R. O.

2. Mohammad Zada was a permanent workman in Messrs Nagaria Textile Mills Ltd., Landhi. On 7th May, 1976 he was charge‑sheeted for habitual absence. Some unruly incident took place on 8th May, 1076, and for this he was also charge‑abetted. Mohammad Zada submitted his explanation but ft was not found satisfactory and, therefore, an inquiry was ordered. However, on 24th June 1976 Mohammad Zada and 14 other workmen submitted a joint representation for increase in wages or in alternative for settlement of their accounts. This representation was treated to be resignation and was accepted by the Management. Subsequently a representation was made by the workers and they were permitted to withdraw the resignation. Mohammad Zada was also informed to resume his duties. According to him, he went to the mill on 28th July, 1976, but he was stopped at the gate and was not permitted to resume his duties in spite of the fact that the withdrawal of his resignation was accepted and he was required to resume his duties. He sent a grievance notice on 29th July 1976 but it was not replied. Consequently, on 7th September 1976 he approached the Labour Court for re‑instatement with back benefits.

3. The application was resisted. It was pleaded that, although, the workers including Mohammad Zada were asked to resume their duties but Mohammad Zada did not attend and declined to withdraw his resignation. Consequently, he was not entitled to the re‑instatement or any benefit.

4. Evidence, was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court accepted the statement made by Mohammed Zada That he went to the mills on 28th July, 1976 to resume his duties but he was not allowed to enter the mills, and, therefore, the action of the Management was illegal and Mohammad Zada was liable to be re-instated but he was not entitled to any back benefits as it was of his own fault.

5. Aggrieved by this, the parties filed the present appeals.

6. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court so far it relate a to the reinstatement of Mohammad Zada. Of course, he had submitted his resignation along with other workers but on their represen tation, they were allowed to withdraw the resignations and permitted to resume their duties. Mohammad Zada was also accepted the withdrawal of his resignation and actually went to the mills on 28th July 1976, but he was stopped at the gate and was not permitted to enter the mills. There is no reason to reject this statement. This is supported by the fact that on the following date he had sent a grievance notice, yet no reply was given. The Management had examined the Chowkidar to refute, the allegation made by Mohammad Zada but his evidence, was rejected by the Labour Court and I see no reason to take a different view. Consequently the re instatement was properly ordered by the Labour Court.

7. So fat the back benefits are concerned. I am unable to maintain the order of the Labour Court that Mohammad Zada is not entitled to any benefit. His claim can be rejected only up to the date of his absence, but when he appeared on 28th July, 1976 to resume his duties, he was illegally stopped at the gate and. therefore, there was no justification for denial of the wages to him from that date. The absence subsequent to 28th July, 1976 was not due to his fault, but the Management is responsible 4 for it. I, therefore, order that Mohammad Zada is entitled to the wages w. e. f. Q8th July, 1976.

8. In result the appeal filed by the Management is dismissed while the appeal filed by Mohammad Zada is allowed with the modification as indicated.