Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- --Ss. 25-A & 38 (3)-Re-instatement-Back benefits-Grievance petition against alleged wrongful termination-Employer expressing willingness to take petitioner workman on duty-Labour Court on basis of statement of employer directing re-instatement of petitioner with back benefits-Order of Labour Court regarding back benefits challenged in appeal on grounds that petitioner had remained absent and was charged for habitual absence without leave for a part of period--Back benefits for such, held, not justified to be allowed-Order of Labour Court modified by Appellate Tribunal. Naeem Bukhari for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 6th March, 1984. ORDER The facts briefly stated are that the respondent was appointed as a Welder in the appellant-establishment. It is alleged by him that soon after his appointment, the appellant stopped taking the work of Welder from him and was put to perform the duties of a Peon. He also alleged that on 5th September, 1983, the appellant refused to make payment of his earned wages for the months of August and September, 1983. He served a grievance notice on the appellant with no success. He, there­fore, filed an application under section 25-A, I. R. O., before the 1st Labour Court at Karachi with prayer that he be restored to the post of Welder and for recovery of wages for the month of August, 1983 and onwards. The appellant appeared and his counsel made a statement, dated 31st October, 1983 to the effect that the appellant was ready to take the respondent and he may join his duties with immediate effect. The learned Labour Court on the basis of the statement passed an order directing the re-instatement of the respondent to the post of Welder with back benefits. The appellant aggrieved by the order only with regard to the award of back benefits to the respondent has come up in this appeal. 2. I have perused the material evidence on the record and have also heard the learned counsel Mr. Naeem Bukhari for the appellant and the respondent in person. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two-fold contention ; firstly, that the respondent remained absent from duty…

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