Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAJI MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: THAL JUTE MILLS LTD., MUZAFFARGARH
1978 P L C 284
1978 P L C 284
[IVth Labour Court Punjab]
HAJI MUHAMMAD
Versus
THAL JUTE MILLS LTD., MUZAFFARGARH
Appeal No. 339 of 1974, decided on 4th October 1975.
Industrial Relation Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--
‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Re‑instatement‑Benefit of re‑instatement given by Junior Labour Court on technical ground as a matter of grace‑Such case does not warrant award of back benefits in addition to re‑instatement.
Appellant in person
M. S. Bokhari for Respondent.
DECISION
This appeal has been filed by Haji Muhammad, workman of That Jute Mills Limited, Muzaffargrah, against the partial rejection of his redress in the learned Junior Labour Court ride its order, dated 7‑11‑1974 whereby be was refused to be paid his back benefits of his service while being re‑instated after dismissal by the respondent‑Management. The charge against him in the domestic enquiry was that he misbehaved with his shift incharge on 22‑4‑1974, as his application for leave was rejected and he was called upon to carry on his duty. It was further mentioned in the charge‑sheet against him that he had already been warned thrice for not taking diligent interest in his work besides once having threatened his line Sardar with life at the point of knife. Since the misbehaviour on the part of the appellant worker in the fresh charge‑sheet remained undefined in the evidence produced against him in the domestic enquiry and the allegation regarding past warnings about his misconduct could not find any mention in the statements of witnesses he was directed to be re instated under the impugned order. No appeal has been filed by the respon dent‑Management against the re‑instatement of the appellant. However, in contesting the present appeal it has been shown that at the start of the enquiry against the appellant he had confessed his guilt in writing to the Management and had begged for pardon. The fact could not be controverted on behalf o the ‑appellant coupled with the fact that he was exonerated of the charge by the learned lower Court on the ground that the misbehaviour alleged against the appellant only remained unexplained on the record. In such circumstance I am of the view that the appellant was given the benefits of re‑instatement more or loss on technical ground as a matter of grace, which did not warrant the award of back benefits in addition thereto. The impugned order therefore being upheld the appeal is dismissed as having no force. The fib may be consigned.