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. F. D. 764 of 1984, decided on 17th February, 1985.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Reinstatement‑Back benefits ‑ Dismissal order unjustified‑Back benefits are allowed not to punish employer but for reason that petitioner remained out of job not for his fault Petitioner if earned livelihood elsewhere has to account for it to em ployer before he can get direction for payment of back benefits-- Petitioner failing to prove for remaining jobless during intervening period‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly disallowed back benefits.
Ali Rizwan for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 2nd February, 1985.
The decision dated 26th November, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. The ground given by the learned lower Court for disallowing back benefits to the appellant is that no evidence was produced to prove that the appellant remained jobless during the period of her dismissal from service. Back benefits are allowed while accepting the grievance petitions not for purpose of punishing the employer but for the reason that the worker re mained out of job not for his fault. If the worker has earned his liveli hood, he has to account for it to the employer before he can get a direction of payment of back benefits. If he has earned less than what he would have earned but for his uncalled for and unjustified removal from service, he is entitled to only the difference, but if he has earned more, he cannot be allowed back benefits. Since only the appellant knew what she had earned during the period of her dismissal from service, the onus is upon her to prove either that she remained totally jobless or that she earned less than what she would have earned if she had not been removed from service. Since in the present case, the appellant failed to prove that she remained jobless, she was rightly disallowed back benefits.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
A.E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer