These are appeals against the orders of the learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore, dated 14-6-1972 passed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969.
2. Since the points of law involved in all these appals are the same, they will be disposed of together by this order.
3. The appellants were dismissed from service for misconduct. Against their dismissal, they separately filed applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Chairman, Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore, who finding that the order of d1smissal in each case was bad in law and in some cases the Management had not supplied appellants with the copies of the statements of witnesses appearing against them, ordered that they be re- instated within a fortnight from the day of the Judgment. The learned Chairman in his order specifically mentioned that since the applications were being allowed on technical grounds the appellants were not entitled to back wages. Aggrieved by the above orders, the appellants have separately filed appeals demanding that back wages be paid to them.
4. In all these appeals it will be seen that the appellants were not re-instated on the ground that they had not committed misconduct but that the order of dismissal was bad in law and in some cases the appellants were not supplied copies of the statements of the witnesses appearing against them and thereby causing them prejudice the learned Chairman of the Labour Court passed an order for their re-instatement holding that they wart not entitled to receive back wages.
This decision in my view is perfectly legal. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, in the case, Workers' Union v. Messrs Indus Chemicals & Alkalis Ltd., Karachi (1972 PLC 220), wherein at page 244 it is observed:- "The next question is as to whether these workmen are entitled to back benefits on their re- instatement. The order of dismissal against these 159 workmen is being set aside on the ground not that these workmen are not guilty of any misconduct, but that the employer has failed to observe the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Standing Orders in regard to enquiry. In that view of the matter, the back benefits that the workmen may be entitled to got will depend upon the result of the enquiry by the Company. Those workmen who are held by the Company to be not guilty will be entitled to full back benefits."
5. The learned representative of the appellants, on the other hand, argued that a worker who is dismissed from service as a result of an illegal order would be entitled to wages for the period of his unemployment, as a result of an order which was found to be bad in law. In support of his contention he cited the decision of the West Pakistan Industrial Appellate.
Tribunal in the case, Muhammad Islam v, The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore (1969 PLC 545), wherein it was held:- "The general rule is that where an employee remains out of employment as a result of an illegal order, he would be entitled to wages for the period of his unemployment, as a result of an order which was found to be bad in law. There can, however, be circumstances under which the employee may not be entitled to full wages. In the present case, however, no ground has been made out to my satisfaction for not allowing the wages for the period that the appellant was out of employment. The appeal is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay his wages from the date of his dismissal from service to the date he was re-instated."
The above cage is distinguishable from the facts of the cases in appeal because in this case no reason was given by the learned Chairman for not allowing back wages whereas in the cases in appeal valid reasons for not allowing back wages have been given by the learned Chairman.
Moreover, in the above-cited case, it is clearly mentioned that there may be circumstances under which an employee may not be entitled to full wages. The learned Representative of the appellants also relied on the judgments of the West Pakistan Labour Appellate Tribunal in the cases, Muhammad Alam v. District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpur (1969 PLC 841) and Muhammad Saeed v. Road Transport Corporation, Lahore (1969 PLC 841). In all these above cases the reason why back wages were allowed to the appellants was that the domestic enquiry held by the respondent was found to be perverse. In the cases in appeal, the enquiry was perfectly all right but the order of dismissal was bad in law and, therefore, re-instatement was ordered. In view of the above, the judgments cited by the learned representative of the appellants do not help him.
I, accordingly, find no merit in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed.