1996 PLP 188 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 51‑‑‑Back benefits‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Employees who were ordered to be re‑instated had themselves admitted in their evidence that they were gainfully employed during period they remained out of job‑‑‑Employees, in circumstances, could not claim full back benefits. Muhammad Ali Mazhar for Appellant. MA.K. Azmati for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th September, 1995. These are two connected appeals by M/s. J & S Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi against the order of the Labour Court allowing petitions under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. for re‑instatement and back benefits.

2. Respondent Muhammad Jehangir was appointed by the appellant company as Chowkidar since 1‑7‑1989 at a salary of Rs.2,000 per month. On 22‑2‑1990 by a letter dated 19‑2‑1990 his services were terminated. After service of grievance notice he filed his petition before the Labour Court and he was ordered to be reinstated with back benefits.

3. Respondent Masieh was also sweeper employed by the said company since 7‑6‑1986. His services were also terminated in similar manner by an order dated 19‑2‑1990.

4. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the services of the respondents were terminated during the period of probation but period of probation is not defined anywhere in the Newspaper Employees Act, 1973. Section mentions that "services of newspaper employee shall not be terminated if the total period of continuous service of the employee is more than three months". Thus, employees having a service above three months are to be served with notice of one month, two months or three months, if total period of their service is more than three months, more than two years or more than three years respectively, and the termination is to be for of good cause shown.

5. In this case no notice was served on the employees though their services exceeded three years and no reason s were given for their termination. The learned Labour Court accordingly held that the respondents being regular employees, are entitled to show‑cause notices and their services could not be terminated simpliciter. Their applications were accordingly allowed and they f were re‑instated in service with full back benefits.

6. Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar for the company has argued that even if the re‑instatement had to be ordered the respondents were not entitled to full back benefits, as they have admitted in evidence that they were gainfully employed during the period they remained out of job. The one was working as a driver with his relation and was getting Rs.1,000 while the other was also working with a contractor for a salary of Rs.1,500.

7. Under the circumstances the respondents could not claim the full back benefits and they are accordingly allowed only 1/4th of their salaries for the said period after termination till re‑instatement. With this modification the appeals of the company are otherwise dismissed. H.B.T./2514/Lb.S Order accordingly.