Pakistan Case Law← Search
1985 PLC 173

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs NASIR BAKHSH

Citation1985 PLC 173
CourtLabour Appellate Tribunal
Case No.Appeal No, MN-773 of 1981
Date1982-04-17
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi
ResultOrder accordingly

ORDER

' This appeal arises from the decision dated 31st October, 1981 passed by learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan whereby the respondents were directed to be reinstated with legal benefits.

2. The respondent was transferred to Sher Shah where he joined duty on 5-10-1978. He however did not vacate the quarter allotted to him at Multan, in spite of repeated directions. He, therefore, was suspended on 5-12-1979. According to Railway Rules taking of permission from the competent authority was necessary where the suspension exceeded three months. In the present case however no sanction was obtained and on this ground the learned Trial Judge vide the impugned order directed the re-instatement. The respondent in the meantime died, therefore, his wife has appeared. Since the respondent has died the order of reinstatement cannot be challenged in the present appeal and to this extent the appeal has become infructuous. However, learned counsel for the appellant has contested the appeal to the extent the impugned order directed the payment of back benefits to the deceased respondent. Since the order of suspension after three months became illegal on account of absence of sanction from the competent authority, the deceased was entitled to the back benefits for the period he remained under illegal suspension. Since suspension for three months was legal, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to the back benefits from 6-3-1979 to 30th July, 1981 the date on which the deceased was directed to be re-instated. I accordingly partly accept the appeal and modify the order of learned lower Court directing that back benefits shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased for the period from 6-3-1979 to 30-3-1981.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search