Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑114 of 1983, decided on 12th July, 1984.

‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Workman claiming back benefits‑‑Bound to show that he did not earn anything during intervening period‑‑Workman a Law Graduate‑‑Refusing to answer question whether he had started practice after termination‑‑Petitioner (workman), in circumstances, held, bound to answer such question.

Muhammad Hussan for Appellants.

Ch. Abdul Hamid for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th July, 1984.

The appeal titled above challenges the decision, dated 23‑1‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant. The ground given is that the appellant refused to answer the question whether he had started practice after his termination from service on the ground that the question was irrelevant.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant rightly said that the question was irrelevant as the respondent had not pleaded that the appellant had started practice, nor set off was claimed in the written statement. The argument is not tenable and the authority cited by the learned counsel is not helpful. This is true that in ordinary civil cases the defendant has to off under C.P.C. but labour cases are different in nature. In ordinary case the defendant knows what is due to him from the plaintiff but in labour cases the employer has no source to know if his out of service employee had joined service or occupation with some other employer. Since the appellant claims back benefits in his petition, it was his duty to show if he earned anything during the period of his termination from service. So, he was bound to answer the question put to him about his working as a practicing lawyer. The question thus was not irrelevant. However, according to unrebutted statement of the appellant, he passed LL.B. Examination in November, 1974. Undisputedly before a person issued licence to work as practicing lawyer, he has to produce certificate of a senior lawyer that he got training under him for six months. So, adding the period of six months to the date on which the appellant got LL.B. degree, the date from which he was eligible to start practice comes to 31‑5‑1975. There is no evidence that during this period the appellant remained employed under any other employer. So, he is entitled to back benefits from 5‑7‑1974, the date of his termination from service, upto 31‑5‑1975. But beyond that he is not entitled to any back benefits. However, if he earned any yearly increments during this period that would be added to his pay for the future but he will be entitled to arrears of this increment alongwith back benefits upto 31‑5‑1975. The appeal is thus partly accepted to this extent and the respondent is directed to act accordingly.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.