1984 PLP 1432 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Workman‑Back benefits, claim of‑Workman suffering due to void and uncalled for order of dismissal not repeated even by competent authority after making re‑enquiry‑Such workman, held, entitled to back benefits. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑‑‑‑

S. 25‑A‑Workman‑Entitlement to pay for suspension period Workman suspended for period of three months for purposes of enquiry‑‑Such workman, held, not entitled to pay for period of three months except for subsistence allowance. Ch. Altaf Hussain for Appellants. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 21st March, 1982. The above‑captioned two appeals arise from the decision, dated 21st November, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of Saadat Hasan was accepted and he was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. National Bank was allowed to make fresh enquiry. National Bank has challenged the order of re‑instatement of Saadat Hasan, whereas Saadat Hasan has challenged the permission to hold fresh enquiry, claiming back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment, in which National Bank of Pakistan will be described as the appellant while Saadat Hasan as the respondent. 2. The allegations against the respondent were that on 7th July, 1977 at 9‑00 a. m. he alongwith others went to the chamber of Mr. Haider Mahmood, Manager, Gujranwala City Branch and forced him to receive a document regarding the nomination of certain representatives and when the said Manager refused to receive the document and said that it be sent in due course, the respondent alongwith others took hold of the respondent, the appeal of the appellant is competent and is to be decided on merits. I do not find much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Since the order of reprimand only has been passed, it means that the penalty of dismissal was considered even by the competent authority as uncalled for in the circumstances of the case. If the Management had made proper enquiry in the very beginning and has thoroughly considered the case of the respondent, it would not have passed the order of dismissal. Definitely, the respondent has suffered due to the void and uncalled for order of dismissal, which was not repeated even by the competent authority after making re‑enquiry. In A these circumstances, the respondent is entitled to back benefits. The back benefits will, however, not include the period of suspension of three months, because according to second Wage Commission Award, for the purpose of enquiry, an employee can be suspended only for three months and not beyond that. Since admittedly for the purposes of enquiry, the respondent was suspended, he is not entitled to the pay for the period of B suspension of three months. However, subsistence allowance which he has‑already received is not liable to be refunded. 1, accordingly, dismiss the appeal of the National Bank of Pakistan as having become infructuous and partly accept the appeal of the respondent to the extent of allowing him back benefits. However, the order of re‑enquiry shall remain intact. M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.