2001 PLP 279 (PLC)

(1999 SCMR 1573). It is pertinent to mention here Mat no judgment is on the aforesaid page. (1999 SCMR 1573). Pakistan through General Manager's case (PLD 1970 SC 415).

3. The respondents' counsel submits that petitioner got the retirement voluntarily during the pendency of this writ petition and received the benefits on 13‑9‑2000 without reserving the right to claim 50% back benefits on the basis of this writ petition which is pending adjudication, therefore, writ petition has become infructuous on account of the subsequent events and conduct of petitioners; that services of petitioner were terminated on the allegations of corruption. The dismissal order was set aside by the Tribunal below on technical ground, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get back 'benefits. In support of his contention he relied upon Muhammad Bashir's case (1991 SCMR 2087). He also relied upon the judgment, cited by petitioner's counsel and submits that judgment cited by petitioner's counsel in fact supports the case of respondent; that petitioner approached the Punjab Labour Court and grievance petition was returned to the petitioner as the principle laid down by this Court in (1985 PLC 1053 Vice‑President, N.B.P. v. Punjab Appellate Tribunal); thereafter the petitioner filed suit for declaration in which plaint was returned to the petitioner on the basis of law laid down in Iftikhar Ahmed's case (PLD 1988 SC 53) that Punjab Appellate Tribunal was justified to reduce 50% back benefits on the well‑known principle that nobody should be penalized by the act of Court; In this behalf he relied upon Sh. Muhammad Shafique's case (PLD 1992 Lah. 60) and Namdar Khan's case (1993 SCMR 434); that substantial justice has been done, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of orders passed by Tribunal below to resolve the controversy between the parties:‑‑ Order of Punjab Labour Court: "The dismissal order is quite illegal even the inquiry conducted by Inquiry Officer is also not in accordance with Rules and procedure. I, therefore, accept the petition, set aside the order of dismissal, dated 15‑2‑1983 and reinstate the petitioner in service with all back benefits. " Order of Punjab Appellate Tribunal: "So far as the back benefits are concerned, the respondents deposed before the learned Labour Court in his statement that on account of being dismissed from service, he could not get any job. No evidence was produced by the appellant to show that in reality the respondent had been working for gain. However, the learned Lower Court has wrongly allowed full back benefits for the total period during which the respondent remained out of service. The decision of the case was delayed on account of the divergent decision on the point as to which forum was competent to give relief to the respondent. In these circumstances, neither the respondent can be deprived of benefits for the whole period nor the appellant can be burdened to pay full back benefits. In my opinion in the circumstances of the case if 50% back benefits are allowed it would meet the ends of justice." The aforesaid parts of the operative orders of Tribunal below which reveals that Punjab Labour Court did not discuss the evidence on record and granted the full back benefits to the petitioners whereas the Punjab Appellate Tribunal reduced back benefits to 50% with reasons. It is settled proposition of law that nobody should be penalized by the act of Court as principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:‑‑ Muhammad Mansha and another's case (1999 SCMR 1782) and Mian Arsahd Ali's case (PLD 1975 Lah. 7). The back benefits were reduced on the basis of the aforesaid grounds in reported case Anwar Ali Shah's case (1992 PLC 1256)_ and the relevant observations is as follows:‑‑ "The employee cannot burden an employer with payment of his back benefits when he has been dragging his employer in wrong forum for such a long period. In my opinion, therefore; there is no case made out for awarding back benefits to the appellants and the appeal with regard to back benefits is dismissed." It is settled proposition of law that it is discretion of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal either to grant or refuse the back benefits. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In arriving to, this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ "Khalf Shah's case (1988 PLC 877); Habib‑ur‑Rehman's case (1983 PLC 1279); Muhammad Jufri's case (1986 PLC 1166). The impugned judgment of Punjab Appellate Tribunal reveals that the back benefits were reduced after applying its independent mind with reasons meaning thereby discretion was exercised in accordance with law keeping in view the principle of equity, justice and fairplay coupled with the facts that the petitioners did not mention a single word in his petition that he remained out of job after dismissal till filing the grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court. It is also settled proposition of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of Tribunal below as the principle laid down in Mussadaq's case (PLD 1973 Lah. 600) and (PLD 1964 SC 236). In view of what has been discussed above, there is no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑121/L Petition dismissed.