Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. FD‑17 of 1986, decided on 21st January, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Worker not asserting before Labour Court that he remained jobless after wrongful termination‑‑Assertion of such right by employee, held, would afford opportunity to employer to divulge true facts, by cross‑examination‑ Affidavit at appellate stage by worker to that effect, held, was not sufficient to upset order of Labour Court disallowing back benefits.
Ikram Zahid for Appellant. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1986.
The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 22‑12‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad to the extent it did not allow back benefits to the appellant. The ground given by the learned lower Court for not allowing back benefits that the appellant did not assert that he remained jobless is cogent. Back benefits are allowed to the workers not as a punishment to the employer for illegally terminating the services of the workers but to compensate the latter for remaining jobless for not any fault of his. So, if a worker has earned money more or upto the amount of back benefits, he is not entitled to back benefits. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has filed his affidavit with the appeal to the effect that he remained jobless. This is not enough. Employers have no source to know if their ex‑employees are jobless or not. If the worker deposes in his statement that he remained jobless, the employer has an opportunity to make the worker divulge true facts by cross‑examining him. Since the employees know if they remained jobless or earned something, it is necessary for them A to assert that they remained jobless and if they do so, the onus is upon the employer to prove the otherwise. Filing of affidavit with the appeal is not sufficient. The appellant, therefore, was rightly disallowed back benefits.
2. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
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