1994 PLP 690 (PLC)

Mian Abdur Rashid for Respondents Nos. 1 to

3. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4 and

5. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1994. This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 8100 and 12272 of 1991 involving identical questions of law and facts and arising out of judgment dated 16‑6‑1991, passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the decision dated 9‑3‑1991 of the Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Ferozewala; Lahore, was upheld for reinstatement of the petitioner, but back benefits were disallowed to him. .

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was dismissed from service of Habib Bank Limited on 21‑7‑1990. On a grievance petition filed by him under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, he was reinstated into service with back benefits on the ground that the allegations of misconduct/embezzlement were not proved on record and that he remained out of job during his dismissal period. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, the Bank filed an appeal which was accepted to the extent of disallowing back benefits.

3. I have heard the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank and perused the material available on record. 1n so far as the question of reinstatement is concerned, the controversy raised herein is concluded by a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner was not guilty of misconduct/embezzlement for which he was punished. In consequence, no ground is made out for interference to this extent. As regards payment of back benefits, the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal disallowed the same with the following observations:‑‑ "However, back benefits have been wrongly allowed to the respondent. He had ignored the rule that he had to enter the cheques of Rs.40,000, Rs.8,000 and Rs.62,000 in the record on the same day on which they were received and honoured. The amounts were to be debited to the accounts of the customers who had drawn the said cheques. On account of failure on the part of the respondent, the cash had shown shortage of Rs.1,10,

000. Since he showed slackness in the discharge of his duties, he was not entitled to back benefits."

4. In Muhammad Bashir and others v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others 1991 SCMR 2087, it was held that where the order of removal or dismissal has been actuated partly or wholly on account of conduct attributable to a workman, he would not be entitled to back benefits and the same cannot be regarded as "just and proper" within the purview of section 25‑A of the Ordinance. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the precedent case I hold that Muhammad Rafi, petitioner, was, rightly declined back benefits, in that, he was held to be slack in the discharge of his duties while making relevant entries in respect of shortage of Rs.1,10,

000. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1695/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petitions dismissed.