| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 555 1994 SLD 555 1994 PLC 150 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.
Appeal No. 20 of 1992, decision dated: 22-05-1993.
JUSTICE ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN
Abdul Waheed for Appellant. Muhammad Latif for
Respondent.
Appeal No. 20 of 1992, decision dated: 22-05-1993.
JUSTICE ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN
Abdul Waheed for Appellant. Muhammad Latif for
Respondent.
MUSAMIR GUL
VS
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE
Law:
Section:
Industrial dispute Back benefits and wagesEntitlementEmployee who was involved in a narcotic case was dismissed from serviceOn filing grievance petition against his dismissal, he was reinstated, but back benefits and wages were refused to him for period of his dismissal on ground that he did not inform employer about actual cause of his confinement in jailEmployee was rightly adjudged guilty for wilful negligence for not informing employer about actual cause of his confinement in jail and back benefits and wages were rightly disallowed to himEmployee by his own conduct being responsible for acts which resulted in his dismissal from service, his claim to back benefits and wages for intervening period could not be entertained. Muhammad Bashir and others v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1991 SCMR 2087 ref. JUDGMENT This appeal has been moved to question the legality of the judgment of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar, dated 2831992 whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for grant of back benefits and wages was dismissed. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as Driver in the Establishment of the respondent but having been found involved in a narcotic case he was dismissed from service with effect from 15111988. The appellant preferred a grievance petition against his dismissal order and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, vide order dated 28111990, while accepting the grievance petition, set aside the order of his dismissal from service and ordered his reinstatement in service with permission to the respondent to hold fresh enquiry in the matter after affording full opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. It was held at that time that "the question of back benefits and wages will depend upon the result of fresh enquiry." 3. In pursuance of the above order, the Management conducted fresh enquiry against the appellant and the Enquiry Officer held that the appellant could not be held responsible because of this absence at the relevant time as he was confined in Central Jail, Gujranwala in a criminal case but he found him guilty for his wilful negligence/carelessness for having not…
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