Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. LHR-273 of 1983, decided on 9th April, 1984.
-- Ss. 25-A & 38(3)-Grievance petition against dismissal from service- Re-instatements-Back benefit While deciding reinstate ment it is to be considered by Labour Court whether petitioner was or not entitled to back benefits-Petitioner if claiming benefits must on oath state that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during intervening period and if so employed where and how much he earned-Petitioner not making any statement to that effect before Labour Court nor filing even an affidavit with memo. of appeal against order of Labour Court disallowing back benefits- Entitlement to back benefits, in circumstances, held, not proved and appeal dismissed by Appellate Tribunal.
Habib Ullah for Appellant.
Malik Bashir Ahmad for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1984.
In this appeal the decision, dated 17th April, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged, only to the extent that back benefits were not allowed to the appellant. The reason given is that the appellant did not state that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of his dismissal from service.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that back benefits should have been allowed as a matter of course. He has cited 1980 P L C 42, 1982 P L C 132. In the former ruling it has been held that enquiry into facts as to how much the employee earned while he stood terminated, is extraneous to the proceedings. With great respect I can not agree. While considering the question of re-instatement, it is to be considered whether the employee is or is not entitled to back benefits. Only the employee concerned knows whether he had remained gainfully employed elsewhere and if so, how much he earned. So, if he claims back benefits, it is his duty to say on oath that he was not gainfully employed and if employed. where and how much he earned In the present case the appellant did not say anything in this respect in his, statement before the learned lower Court. He even did not file any affidavit with the memo. of appeal to that effect although he knew that for not making any statement in this respect he was disallowed back benefits. So, he has not proved his entitlement to the back benefits,
3. As a result., the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer