MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY, TANDO MUHAMMAD. KHAN, HYDERABAD

DECISION

All these eleven appeals are directed against one common order of learned Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dated 2-3-1991, therefore I will dispose of all eleven appeals by this single decision.

2. I have heard Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for appellants and Mr. Mir Muhammad Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent management and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. The only grievance of Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi appears to be with respect to para. 27 of the impugned judgment which may be reproduced as under:--

"For all these reasons all of the applicants except 11 persons who were given letters of appointment on 10-9-1989 are entitled to be reinstated with full back benefits. 11 applicants named above who were appointed by respondent on 10-9-1989 have lost their cases for their reinstatement, but they are entitled to the back benefits from the date of their termination till they were again appointed."

4. Mr. Rizavi appears to interpret this operative part of the order of the learned Labour Court in the sense that eleven appellants have not been given continuance of their services as learned Labour Court had observed that as appellants have been reinstated before the decision of their case, therefore they had lost their cases for reinstatement. Naturally Labour Court cannot order a person, who has already been reinstated, to be reinstated again.

5. However the appellants in the grievance application had prayed that after completion of the period of their apprenticeship they should be declared regular employees and they also claimed back benefits from the date they were removed from service. The learned Labour Court had allowed both these prayers. There can be no doubt that learned Labour Court had considered the appellants to be continuous in regular service from the date of their original termination of service because otherwise neither they would have been declared regular employees nor they would be given back benefits. This appeal appears to be based upon miss-interpretation and misreading of the order of the learned Labour Court.

6. Mr. Mir Muhammad Shaikh submits that appellants had been appointed afresh on 18-9-1989 and therefore there could be no continuity in their service. As I pointed above, the learned Labour Court has granted the appellants back benefits from the date of their termination till their fresh appointments. A person who is not declared to be in service cannot be granted back benefits. The fact that the appellants were granted back benefits would clearly show that the Court had considered them in continuous service. The initial order of termination of service also has been held illegal and by operation of law also they would be deemed to have continued in service. Against the order of the learned Labour Court giving back benefits to the appellants and declaring order of termination illegal, the respondents filed an appeal but subsequently they withdrew it. The respondents thereby accepted the order of the learned Labour Court. It may also be pointed out that even after accepting fresh appointment the appellants had not withdrawn grievance applications, which were pending before the learned Labour Court in which their prayer was granted by the learned Labour Court.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances that the appellants continued to be in service from the date of their dismissal viz. from the date of their first termination, they are entitled to full back benefits till the date of their fresh appointment.

8. appeals disposed of accordingly.

H.B.T./1961/Lb. S Order accordingly.