1994 PLP 535 (PLC)

Muhammad Asghar Malik for Petitioner: Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1994. Challenge in this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 read with Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, has been made to order dated 10‑3‑1984 made by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. Lhr‑500 of 1983 Punjab whereby the same was accepted and the order of Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore dismissing his grievance petition seeking his reinstatement in service was reversed disallowing the back benefits to him.

2. There is no need for going into the details of the cause in relation of this matter. Suffice it to say that W.P. No. 1133/85 filed by the respondent Managing Director, Punjab Livestock, Diary and Poultry Development Board, Lahore and Project Director, Lahore Milk plant has been dismissed for non -prosecution. The plea of the respondent‑authority in W.P. No.1133/85 related to the very reinstatement of the petitioner into service under orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 10‑3‑1984. A perusal of the impugned order dated 10‑3‑1984 shows that he had attended the office on 8‑2‑1982 for some time and his continuous absence from duty from 9‑2‑1982 to. 23‑2‑1982, exceeding 10‑days, was held to be sufficient to constitute misconduct. After recording the finding as above, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal proceeded with the observation that since the inquiry held in the case of the petitioner was illegal, his dismissal from service could not be countenanced in law. The last paragraph of the judgment reads thus: "

5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. As on account of the ex parte enquiry being premature the appellant has been reinstated instead of allowing fresh enquiry, I disallow back benefits to the appellant."

3. The only argument addressed in a support of this petition is that as the inquiry against the petitioner was held to be illegal and he was ordered to be reinstated into service, he should have been allowed the back benefits as per the dicta in Divisional Superintendent, N.W.R., Lahore v. Muhammad Sharif, Booking Clerk, N.W.R. Gujrat (1963 PLC 696) and Muhammad Sharif v. Messrs Packages Ltd., (Lahore) 1984 PLC 1696 at p. 1698) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as he had claimed back benefits , while appearing as P.W.1, in support of his grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, such assertion has the effect of successfully crossing the hurdle in his way for grant of back benefits to him. He has referred to a sentence of three words in his examination‑in‑chief, which reads: "I am not employed." to contend that Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was in error in refusing back benefits to him. I am afraid the contention is devoid of any merit. It is not the case of the petitioner that the appellate‑forum was not possessed of the jurisdiction to refuse back benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner has not even so much as alleged that the impugned order suffers from illegality, much less a jurisdictional error. Moreover, the learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has attended to the question of petitioner's claim for back benefits and held that: "As on account of the ex parte enquiry being premature the appellant has been reinstated instead of allowing fresh enquiry, I disallow back benefits to the appellant." The finding recorded by the learned Chairman has not been shown to be suffering from misreading or non‑reading of any material available to the appellate‑forum, to justify issuance of the writ/order prayed for in these proceedings. Be that as it may, this Court cannot substitute its own finding for that of the appellate‑forum, in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1543/L Petition dismissed.