MEHMOOD AHMAD BUTT Versus GHULAM MURTAZA HASHMI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that had set aside a Labour Court's direction for the payment of service benefits to an employee. The petitioner, a former bank cashier, had been reinstated in service by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in 1988, though initially denied back benefits. Following protracted litigation, the employee sought enforcement of his post-reinstatement service benefits through a complaint under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court ordered the employer to pay these benefits, but the High Court subsequently overturned this decision. The core legal question was whether an employer is justified in withholding service benefits for the period between the employee's reinstatement and the final disposal of the case by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the employee was entitled to service benefits for the period from 12-12-1988 to 9-9-1997, finding no legal justification for withholding them. The Court established the principle that an employer cannot withhold service benefits accrued post-reinstatement pending the final outcome of litigation unless specifically ordered otherwise.
- Is an employee entitled to service benefits for the period between their reinstatement and the final disposal of the case by the Supreme Court?
- Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to compel an employer to implement a decision regarding service benefits under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 38(3-A), Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 53, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 54, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 55, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J --- This petition is directed against, the order dated 27-7-1998 whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed Writ Petition No. 18341 of 1997 filed by the petitioner on behalf of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.
2. The factual background of the controversy, briefly stated, is that the petitioner was employed with Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Lahore, as a Cashier. He was dismissed from service on the charges of fraud and misappropriation of a huge amount. The petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal from service through a grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) (hereinafter called as the Ordinance), before the Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad. But it was dismissed by its order, dated 28-7-1988. Aggrieved from the aforementioned order passed by the Punjab Labour Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Lahore, which was accepted vide order, dated 12-12-1988 whereby the petitioner was reinstated but he was deprived back benefits with effect from 2-2-1982 till his reinstatement on 12-12-1988. The petitioner-Bank filed Writ Petition against the order, dated 12-12-988 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal against the reinstatement of the respondent. The respondent also filed Writ Petition against the said order as the back benefits had not been allowed to him. The High Court, however, dismissed both the writ petitions vide order dated I 1-5-1994. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties filed appeals with leave of this Court, which were dismissed vide order dated 10-4-1997. As the respondents were not paying the benefits after his reinstatement in service, so he filed a complaint under sections 53 and 54 of the Ordinance before the Punjab Labour Court, Faisalabad. The Punjab Labour Court accepted the complaint and directed the respondent to make payment of the wages after the petitioner's reinstatement since 12-12-1988. The respondent feeling aggrieved of the aforementioned order, filed a revision petition under section 38(3-A) of the Ordinance before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was, however, dismissed. Feeling still dissatisfied with the abovementioned orders dated 7-7-1997 and 22-7-1997, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 18341 of 1997 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. It has been accepted by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court vide order dated 27-7-1998.
3. Mr. M. A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court, appearing in support of this petition, contends that the learned Single Judge in the High Court was not justified to have declared that the Punjab Labour Court directing the respondents to implement the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, in his revisional jurisdiction, inasmuch as under sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance a Court was vested with the jurisdiction to compel the person not implementing a decision which he is required to implement under the order of the Punjab Labour Court.
4. Mr. M.A. Qureshi, learned Advocate-on-Record, representing the respondents has attempted to defend the impugned order and submitted that the order dated 12-12-1988 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal remained suspended during the period from-- 9RR to 10-4-1997 because of the order of this Court dated 10-4-1997.
5. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to service benefits from the period from 12-12-1988 to 9-9-1997 inasmuch as there is no justification to withhold the service benefits for the said period.
6. In the light of above what has been observed, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow it with the direction that the appellant would be entitled to his service benefits with effect from 12-12-1988 to 9-9?1997 with no order as to costs.
M.B.A./M-346/S ??????? ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.