1989 PLP 671 (PLC(CS))

Appeals Nos. LHR‑415 and 416 of 1988/Pb., decided on 23rd October, 1988. ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal‑‑Entitlement of employees to back benefits‑‑Dismissal of employees was effected without holding enquiry‑‑Effect‑‑Dismissal set aside without back benefits by Labour Court‑ Disallowance of back benefits challenged in appeal‑‑Where no enquiry had been held, employees would be deemed to have been condemned unheard‑‑Such defect being not merely technical, employees would be entitled to back benefits especially where they remained jobless after dismissal‑‑Where, however, case had remained pending for a long time for adjudication on question of jurisdiction, employees would be entitled to fifty per cent back benefits. Appellants in person. Muhammad Azam Bhour for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th October, 1988. The appeals captioned above arise from the order dated 18‑6‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the appellants were directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. The appellants have challenged the impugned order to the extent it did not allow back benefits to them. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. No appeal has been preferred by the respondents to challenge the direction of reinstatement of the appellants. The learned l6wer Court has disallowed back benefits for the reason that the appellants have succeeded on a technical point. The technical defect is that no enquiry was held against the appellants. This was stated by Mr. Jawad Ali Lodhi RW.2. Since no enquiry was held, the appellants were condemned unheard, therefore, the defect is not merely a technical one. The learned lower Court thus wrongly disallowed back benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to argue that the grievance notice was time‑barred and the learned lower Court was not justified in condoning the delay, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to back benefits. Since no appeal has been brought challenging the direction of reinstatement, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be entertained. Since the learned lower Court directed the reinstatement of both the appellants and since the appellants urged that they right from the date of dismissal from service remained jobless for some other good ground back benefits could be disallowed and the reason given is not cogent. The appellants thus are entitled to back benefits. However, their prayer for full back benefits does not appear to be justified. The case has remained pending for a long time and the petitions were once returned for lack of jurisdiction and on account of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Labour Court has jurisdiction the appellants have succeeded. If full back benefits are delivered, the respondent would suffer due to the act of the Court which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside by holding that not the N.I.R.C. but the Labour Courts have jurisdiction. In these circumstances in my opinion the appellants are entitled to 50% back benefits and I order accordingly partly accepting the appeals. AA./609/Lb. P Appeal partly accepted.