1993 PLP 831 (PLC(CS))

Masood Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 9‑12‑1985, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. V at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the appellant by reinstating him in service of the respondent establishment but, without back benefits, under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman in the respondent establishment working as a fitter. He claimed that while he was on sanctioned leave with effect from 12‑3‑1983 to 27‑3‑1983, he on 25‑3‑1983 was arrested by the police on a false charge of theft and was detained in Jail wherefrom on 13‑4‑1983 he was released on bail and thereafter on‑ 15‑4‑1983 he reported for duty to the respondent establishment. Further it was claimed by the appellant that after two days i.e. on 17‑4‑1983 he was served with a charge‑sheet calling his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for remaining absent without permission for more than 10 days. The appellant claimed that though he had, submitted a satisfactory reply, but, a domestic enquiry was held against him resulting in his termination of services on being found guilty of the misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(e). Thereafter, the appellant after adopting the legal procedure, had submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court as his termination from service was colour able and aimed at his unnecessary victimisation. 2‑A. The respondent‑establishment resisted the petition on the ground that as the appellant had remained unauthorisedly absent from duties for more than 10 days, therefore, his services were rightly terminated after affording him full opportunity to defend himself in a lawfully and reasonably held domestic enquiry, as the appellant had failed to produce any cogent document, well in time, in support of his contention that he was falsely arrested by the police and was detained in Jail. The respondent establishments had further denied that the appellant was not victimised for any other reason, but, on the other hand, they had taken a lenient view by terminating his services, instead of dismissing him from service. They, therefore, claimed that the appellant was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

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

4. I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent‑establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceeding of the case. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned order directing the reinstatement service of the appellants, is well‑reasoned and it needs not to be interfered with. However, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant, in support of his case that the back benefits be also awarded to the appellant has pleaded that the learned Labour Court had completely ignored the vital fact that the appellant's services were not terminated on the ground of absence for more than 10 days without authorised leave or intimation and that it should have taken into consideration the fact that the appellant was in prison and could not be said to have acted negligently if he did not send an intimation from Jail about his detention as there are a number of restrictions on a prisoner. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out that when the appellant did inform the respondent establishment about his arrest and detention, his services were terminated on an altogether different ground that he was a person of bad repute which plea was neither justified in the circumstances of the case nor it was permissible under the Law. He, therefore, contended that when the learned Labour Court had arrived at a conclusion that the removal of the appellant from services was not in accordance with the circumstances and facts of the case, therefore, the denial of back benefits was also unjustified and contrary to the legal requirements. I see much force in the contentions of Mr. Ali Amjad the learned Advocate for the appellant. On the other hand, Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment has fully supported his case and contended that in view of the admitted position that the appellant was absent from duty for more than 10 days for any reason, he was, even, not entitled to be reinstated in service rather to allow him back benefits. I see no force in these arguments of Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment. However, in view of the facts and circumstances brought on record and after perusing the impugned order, I am of the view that at least fifty per cent. (50%) back benefits should be awarded to the appellants.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would also allow the present appeal with only a modification that the appellant be paid fifty per cent (50%) of his back benefits with reinstatement in service, forthwith. M.Y.H./1171/Lb.S Appeal partly allowed.