DECISION This is a revision application against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, V at Karachi, dated 22-11-1989, whereby the appeal filed by the applicants against an order, dated 11- 7-1989, passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are, that the respondent was admittedly working with the applicants as a workman when he was retired from service on 30-6-1985. On his representation that he was prematurely retired, the applicants took him back in service from 2-6-1988, but, the intervening period was treated as leave without pay. The respondent filed an application before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. 1936, for the recovery of the wages for the intervening period which was granted by the learned Authority who awarded the respondent an amount of Rs,70,263.04. The appeal filed by the applicants against this order of learned Authority was dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide the impugned order. The applicants have now invoked the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal to consider the propriety, legality and correctness of the said order.
3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Samad Khan Ghori, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Siddiq Mirza, learned Advocate for the respondent and also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The fact that the applicants took the respondent hack in service and that he continues in service clearly supports the contention of the respondent that he was prematurely retired. The intervening period has been treated as leave without pay. The Standing Orders admittedly are applicable in the instant case. Mr. Ghori, the learned Advocate for the applicants has not been able to point out any provision of law in support of this order of applicants treating intervening period as leave without pay. Mr. Ghori, however, has relied upon 1974 PLC 84 and 1980 PLC 74, which are the decisions of this Tribunal and of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab; wherein it has been held that if the workman is reinstated on technical grounds, arrears of pay for intervening period were not allowed. Both the cases were of dismissal of the employees who were ordered to be reinstated in service on technical grounds. In the instant case, however, the respondent was forced to retire and did not proceed on leave voluntarily. As the applicants have accepted that he was prematurely retired, he cannot be refused wages for period for which he was illegally kept out of service. I, therefore, find no illegality, incorrectness and impropriety with the impugned order of the learned Labour Court to warrant any interference. The revision application is accordingly dismissed.