Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S.25-A--Grievance petition--Wages for period of suspension- -WAPDA employee involved in case of corruption--Remaining under suspension till acquittal--Acquittal not honourable--Pay and increments for suspension period refused on plea that acquittal was not honourable-­Neither any charge-sheet given nor enquiry held nor any order recorded by competent authority that though acquitted the allegations were established departmentally--Plea of acquittal being not honourable repelled and employee, held, entitled to unpaid wages and also increments for suspension period as there was no rule in WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline), Rules that unless the acquittal was honourable the employee was not entitled to wages for period of suspension. Mian Mahmood Hussain for Appellant. Qamar ud Din for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1986. JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 20-7-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he had no cause of grievance. 2. The facts are that on account of involvement in a criminal case of corruption the appellant was suspended on 28-1-1975. He was acquitted on 9-4-1977 and was re-instated in service on 7-5-1977. Vide order-dated 20-8-1977 the period of suspension from 28-1-1975 to 8-5-1977 was treated as leave due. The annual increments for the period during which the appellant remained under suspension were not allowed. The order dated 20-8-1977 was passed by Member (Power). The order by which increments were not allowed is not on the record and, therefore, it cannot be said by whom it was passed. The order dated 20-8-1977 has been challenged on the ground that it was passed by the Member (Power) but according to Rules, only the Chief Engineer concerned was competent in the matter. It has been argued that the order by which increments were not allowed was also passed by an incompetent authority and not by the Chief Engineer and this argument has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has, however, argued that…

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