1984 PLC(CS) 928

Citation1984 PLC(CS) 928

CourtPunjab Labour Appellate Tribunal

Case No.Appeals Nos. LHR‑257 and 245 of 1983

Date1983-07-04

Judge(s)Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. LHR‑257 of 1983 PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION

ResultAppeals dismissed

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 6th April, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby Muhammad Ihsan (hereinafter called the respondent) was directed to be re‑instated in service wihout back benefits. The Punjab Urban Transport Corporation' (hereinafter described as the appellant) has in its appeal challenged the direction of re‑instatement in service, whereas the respondent has claimed back benefits in his appeal. As both the appeals arise from the same impugned decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The allegation against the respondent was that he misbehaved before the Works Manager and used contemptuous language. The actual words uttered by the respondent were not given either in the charge‑sheet or in the admission Exh. R‑13. Firstly, the respondent described the said as unintentional, in the admission so it does not amount to confession and secondly since the actual words were never disclosed, this cannot be said if in reality the words amounted to misbehaviour, insub ordination or indiscipline. Before dismissing a person, and upholding a dismissal order for insubordination or . misbehaving, it is necessary to decide if in reality misconduct was committed. Unless what actually the respondent said is known it cannot be decided that actually he committed misconduct. The respondent admitted what he actually had said but he did not admit the commission of any misconduct. If what he said does not amount to misconduct, it will not be said that be admitted any misconduct. As no misconduct was established, the learned lower Court rightly directed Coed the re‑instatement of the respondent. where does n do appear to be a good ground of awarding back benefits. Sine‑. the respondent admitted the use of objectionable words in favour of his boss which may or may not be amounting to misconduct, he is not entitled to back benefits. In order to keep him under control, he must be given a pinch.

3. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the two appeals and dismiss them in limine.

A, E, Appeals dismissed.