Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SANAULLAH VS Respondent: CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA (E), GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: SANAULLAH vs CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA (E), GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER Case No.: Appeal No. GA-446 of 1982 Date of Judgment:1982-09-07 Reported As: 1983 PLC 277 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT 2. The order of dismissal was set aside and the appellant was directed other re-instated in service for the reason that although the appointing authority was respondent No. 1, yet the notice which was deemed to be equivalent to charge-sheet was sent by respondent No, 2, that no opportu--nity of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant, nor he was allowed to give defence Obviously the order of re-instatement was made on technical grounds as proper enquiry was not held. The reason given by the learned lower Court for disallowing back benefits is that the appellant had failed to inform the respondent regarding his whereabouts. Since on, technical grounds the appellant was re-instated, the lower court was justified in not allowing back benefits to the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.