Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAMI ULLAH ETC VS Respondent: SHEIKH MOULA BAKHSH
1978 P L C 255
1978 P L C 255
[IVth Labour Court Punjab]
SAMI ULLAH ETC
Versus
Sheikh MOULA BAKHSH AHD ANOTHER
Appeals Nos. 372 of 1974 (395 to 398 of 1975), decided on 9th September 1975.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--
-----S. 25‑A‑Re instatement‑Termination of services found, by Junior Labour Court, to be illegal‑Back-benefits of service cannot be refused to workmen concerned while ordering their re‑instatement.
Capt. A. D. Baluch, Legal Advisor for Appellants.
Zafar Hussain Shah for Respondent
DECISION
The above‑named appellants have filed their appeals against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated the 20th December 1974 separately passed by it whereby, despite directing the appellants re‑instatement in service they were not given the back wages due to them during the period of their unemployment. Previously all the four appellants filed a joint appeal against the impugned order but on an objection taken by the other side they were permitted to file appeals separately. Since common question of law needs to be determined in these appeal, the present order passed in Appeal No. 372/74 (395(75) (Sami Ullah verses Sh. Moula Bakhsh and Mubarik Ahmad Oil, Ice, Cotton Ginning and Pressing Mills, Multan will apply in respect of all the appellants and will dispose of their respective appeals.
The appellants were terminated by the respondent‑Management‑vide orders dated 15th July, 1974 in respect of Ghulam Rasul and Din Muhammad appellants and; vide orders, dated 10th July, 1974 and 27th June, 1974 to respect of Muhammad Din and Sami Ullah appellants respectively. Their services were terminated on the simple plea that their services were no longer required by the Management. They moved the learned Junior Labour Court for their re‑instatement on the ground that being permanent employees of the respondent they were illegally terminated without adopting proper procedure.
The learned Junior Labour Court upheld the pleas of the appellants and directed their re‑instatement on the ground that no permanent employee having the legal status of a workman can be terminated without giving explicit reason for the said termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968. No Cross‑appeal has been filed by the respondent‑Manage merit against this finding in the orders now impugned by the appellants for the awards of hack benefits. Since the terminations were found to be illegal the back benefits of service, which were ordinarily due to them could not be refused without making out a justification for such refusal. Under the A circumstances the appellants are entitled to get their back wages with effect from the date of their termination of service to the date of their reinstatement under the impugned orders. The appeals are accepted accordingly.