Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD HANIF
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD HANIF Case No.: Appeals Nos, LHR-47 and 58 of 1985 Date of Judgment:1985-02-22 Reported As: 1985 PLC 781 Result: Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 18th December, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby Muhammad Hanif (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. Punjab Urban Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. As both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. 2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed from service was that disbursement of the pay of one Ali Ahmad had been stopped due to his absence and the appellant got is salary paid to one Liaqat Ali. The charge was not established as the witnesses examined in the inquiry did not support the case. They did not say that the respondent had got the salary of Ali Ahmad paid to Liaqat Ali. That they deposed was that after the payment was made to Liaqat Ali, the respondent said that Liaqat Ali, was willing to refund the money and that the same may be received and the matter may be brushed up. This does not mean that the respondent had got the salary paid to Liaqat Ali. This is apparent that the respondent wanted to save the service of Liaqat Ali but not that he had played any active part in the payment of the salary of Ali Ahmad to Liaqat Ali. So the respondent was rightly directed to be reinstated in service and there is no scope to interfere with the direction of reinstatement. 3. So far as the appeal of the respondent is concerned, it too has no force, inasmuch as he did not say that he remained out of job during the period of his dismissal. Back benefits are delivered to
---
## Page 2
compensate the worker for not earning his livelihood. If he had been working gainfully, he has to account for it to his employer if he claims back benefits from him. 4. As a result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.