1993 PLP 901 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 14th December, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 28‑1‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No.IV at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, directing his reinstatement in service, but, without back benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had claimed that he was employed by the Operation head of Pakistan Steel Mills, Bin Qasim, Karachi, in the capacity of Fitter in Hard strip Roll, Grinding Shop on daily wages at the rate of Rs.35 per day. He claimed that as he had completed 3 months of service, therefore, he was entitled to all the benefits enjoyed by a permanent Fitter. But, on 1‑3‑1986, when he was reported for duty he was informed that his services were no more required and for this, no reasons were assigned. Being aggrieved, the appellant submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent‑Mills resisted the petition on the ground that as, various units and offices etc., were spread over in a large area and numerous machines were being operated day and night, therefore, temporary workers were being appointed for short duration at the Mills and so, the appellant was one of them having been appointed by any of the Contractors, as some work was also given out to independent Contractor, it was, therefore, claimed by the Mills, so he could not maintain his grievance petition, which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant‑establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned order is well‑reasoned as far as the merits of the cases are concerned. However, Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant has contended that the learned Labour Court has not given any cogent or plausible reason as to why it did not allow the back benefits to the appellant while ordering his reinstatement in service and it had acted against the well‑settled law and the rules laid down by the superior Courts including the Supreme Court in a number of other cases. Mr. S.P Lodhi, has further pleaded that the learned Labour Courts had himself held the appellant entitled to become a permanent workman on completion of 3 months service, yet, his reinstatement in service without back benefits was contrary to law. I, therefore, see much force in the argument of Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative of the appellant and would hold that the learned Labour Court was required to discuss reason for disallowing back benefits to the applicant. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent‑Mills has nothing to add to his argument, which he had submitted before the learned Labour Court. From the perusal of the record, it would be evident that there is nothing cogent to prove that the appellant during his unemployment period was gainfully employed anywhere.

6. For the reason discussed by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would also partly allow the present appeal, would therefore order the reinstatement of the appellant, which is accordingly decided in the above terms. M.Y.H./1162/Lb.S. Appeal partly allowed.