Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER VS Respondent: MESSRS NEELI BAR INDUSTRIES, BUREWALAHonorable Justice Muhammad Mian Qureshi
1977 P L C 317(2)
1977 P L C 317(2)
[IVth Labour Court Punjab]
Present; Muhammad Mian Qureshi, Presiding Officer
MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER
versus
MESSRS NEELI BAR INDUSTRIES, BUREWALA
Appeals Nos. 250 and 294 of 1974, decided on 17th June 1975.
Industrial dispute‑--
---Re‑instatement‑Back benefits‑Domestic enquiry admittedly a mere farce‑Workers further prejudiced in defence‑Workman, in circumstances, held, entitled to back benefits on re‑instatement.
Nazeer Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
Aqa Asif Jeffery for Respondent.
DECISION
The above cited appeals have been filed by Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Umer Nawaz Workers against the orders of the learned Junior Labour Court, dated 2nd October, 1974 of similar import denying them the right of back benefits consequential on their re‑instatement in service. As the questions to be determined in both the appeals are of common nature, the present decision will dispose of both the appeals.
The appellants have claimed only back benefits through their appeals by virtue of the domestic enquiry made against them having been held as farcical; both the appellants were called upon to face enquiry against the misconduct of having made a false report to the police regarding the abduction of some workers at the instance of the Management. The services of the appellants were terminated with one month's notice pay under Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 by way of leniency in face of a regular enquiry against a serious charge under Standing Order 15 (3) A. The learned lower Court was of the view that the Management bad no right to dismiss the appellants as the offence charge against them was not applicable under the Standing Order 15(3)A.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in the present appeals and find that in the first instance it has not been controverted on behalf of the respondent Management that the enquiry made against the appellants was a mere farce and that they were prejudiced in their defence. 1t is of no avail to go into the question of the nature of the misconduct or the applicability of the charge under Standing Order 15(3) A of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The fact that the appellants were not given a fair chance of enquiry suffices to entitle them to re‑instatement with back benefits. No reasonable justification was made out in the impugned order for denying the back wages to the appellants when the termination order were held to be bad in law. The appeals are therefore accepted and the appellant directed to be paid their back benefits payable to them under the law from the date of their dismissal to that of re‑instatement on the basis of the order passed by the learned lower Court.