Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑32 of 1984, decided on 30th October, 1984.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition against alleged wrongful termina tion‑Re‑instatement‑Back benefits is not a fine to be inflicted upon employer‑Employee remaining out of service for no fault‑Suffering monetary loss‑To be compensated with delivery of back benefits-Employee not proving that he remained unemployed during intervening period‑Not entitled to back benefits.

Appellant in person.

Mohammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 1984.

The decision, dated 22nd December, 1983 passed by the learned Presi ding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala has been challenged in this appeal to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.

2. The reason given by the learned lower Court for not allowing back benefits is that the circumstances of the case are peculiar. It, however, has not been explained what was the peculiarity for which the appellant is not entitled to past monetary benefits of service. I have carefully gone through the statement of the appellant made before the learned lower Court. He did not state therein that he remained unemployed during the period he remained out of service with the respondent. Delivery of past monetary benefits is not a fine to be inflicted upon the employer. Since for not any fault of his, an employee has remained out of service with the employer, and has suffered monetary loss, he is compensated with the delivery of back benefits. Since the appellant did not prove that he remained unemployed so he is not entitled to back benefits.

3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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