Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2184 2019 SLD 2184 2019 PLJ 450
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition Nos. 866-L & 867-L of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 18.04.2019. (On appeal against common order Dated 6.3.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in W.P. Nos. 1712 & 5133 of 2014).
GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Rao Muhammad Iqbal and Ms. Tasneem Amin, AOR (absent)
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Asad Munir, ASC and Ch. Akhtar Ali, No. 1.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEPCO & OTHERS

VS

MUHAMMAD FAZIL, ETC.

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 212(3)

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 212(3)--Employment as Assistant Line Man--Contractual post--Extension from time to time--Letter to executive officer to spare respondent from duty for cricket practice--Allowed--Issuance of letter for joining duty--Application for medical leave instead of reply--Rejected--Dismissal from service--Absence from service without sanctioned leave--Grievance notice--Grievance petition--Accepted and direction to holding of inquiry--Filling of labour appeal--Allowed and reinstate respondent without back benefits--Filling of writ petition--Disposed of--Modification in of tribunal by extending all back benefits and allowed to initiate fresh proceedings--Challenge to--We are unable to understand how leave which respondent has initially claimed from 29.06.2005 to 18.10.2005 (112-days) came to be extended up to 16.02.2007 for neither respondent has explained this position in his grievance petition nor Labour Court has adverted to this issue and similarly Tribunal and High Court have also omitted to consider same--Be that as it may, there was no sanction of leave to respondent by petitioner and there is no material on record to show that even leave from 29.06.2005 to 18.10.2005 was at all sanctioned to respondent--Respondent's very application for grant of leave was not signed by him and it also does not contain order of competent authority sanctioning same--Very facts of case amply demonstrate that respondent himself was liable for being proceeded against by department for that he remained on unsanctioned leave not only for period he applied in purported application but also beyond that period--Both Labour Court and Tribunal having exercised discretion in not granting back benefits to respondent, such exercise of discretion could not be found to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect--Thus, impugned order of High Court cannot be sustained in eye of law being in excess of jurisdiction vested in it, which is liable to be set aside--Petition converted into appeal and partly allowed. 1990 SCMR 1458, 1990 SCMR 1708, 1996 SCMR 1606 & 1992 SCMR 1348, ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: GULZAR AHMED, J.- The respondent Muhammad…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492