Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WAPDA VS Respondent: NAZAKAT HUSSAIN SHAH
1988 P L C 559
1988 P L C 559
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WAPDA and another
Versus
NAZAKAT HUSSAIN SHAH
Appeal No.LHR. 694 of 1987/Pb., decided on 9th March, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Payment of dues‑‑Worker suspended and reinstated‑‑Labour Court ordering employer to pay his legal dues but employer stating that impugned order of Labour Court was not a speaking order and he was therefore not in a position to implement same‑‑In impugned order neither facts of case were given nor particulars of claim of worker were mentioned‑‑Worker unable to say anything in support of impugned order‑‑Order of Labour Court, held, was not maintainable in circumstances‑‑Order set aside and case remanded for fresh decision after affording opportunity to parties to produce evidence.
Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan for Appellants.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 8‑11‑86 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted directing the appellant to pay the legal dues to the respondent.
2. The facts of the case are that on account of allegation of commission of misconduct the respondent was charge‑sheeted and was brought under suspension vide order dated 26‑1‑1984. He remained suspended upto 5‑8‑1984 when he was ordered to be reinstated vide order dated 6‑8‑1985. He was not paid wages for the period of suspension he, therefore, went in departmental appeal. He was not paid wages from November, 1985. He also mentioned in his petition that he had been sanctioned maternity charges but the same too had not been paid and similarly T.A. on the ground of transfer and house rent were sanctioned but no payment was made. The petition was decided ex parte holding that in spite of service of notice nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned order is not a speaking one therefore, the appellant is not in a position to implement the same. In the impugned order neither the facts of the case are given nor particulars of the claim of the respondent can be found. In the order this is also not said what amount legal dues claimed by the respondent be paid. In the petition the prayer is that wages for the period from November, 1985 till date of institution of the petition be paid but in his statement he mainly claimed wages for the period he remained under suspension for which he had preferred departmental appeal also and in addition claimed wages from November, 1985 upto the date on which he appeared as a witness i.e. 11‑10‑1986. He has not said what had happened to his appeal. He has urged that he was pressurised to withdraw the appeal but has not said whether he had withdrawn the same or that it had been accepted or rejected or was pending. Since in the impugned order the particulars of the legal dues directed to be paid to the respondent are not given it does not appear charges for which period either claimed in petition or claimed in statement have been allowed by the learned lower Court. The respondent has not been able to say anything in support of the impugned order the same thus is not maintainable.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the case is remanded for fresh decision after they appellant files written statement and after affording opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence.
M. Y.H./334/Lb.P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.