1989 PLP 593 (PLC)

‑S‑. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against termination‑‑Reinstatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Petitioner claiming back benefits is duty bound to show whether or not he earned anything during period of his termination‑‑Petitioner having been asked question about his working elsewhere after termination held, was bound to answer the question‑‑Plea that in absence of pleadings to that effect in written statement such question was irrelevant, repelled. Muhammad Hussain for Appellant. Ch. Abdul Hamid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th July, 1984. The appeal titled above challenges the decision dated 23‑1‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant. The ground given is that the appellant refused to answer the question whether he had started practice after his termination from service on the ground that the question was irrelevant.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant rightly said that the question was irrelevant, as the respondent had not pleaded that the appellant had started practice, nor set‑off was claimed in the written statement. The argument is not tenable and the authority cited by the learned counsel is not helpful. This is true that in ordinary civil cases the defendant has to claim set‑off under C.P.C. but labour cases are different in nature. In ordinary cases the defendant knows what is due to him from the plaintiff but in labour cases the employer has no source to know if his out of service employee had joined service or occupation with some other employer. Since the appellant claims back benefits in his petition, it was his duty to show if he earned anything during the period of his termination from service So he was bound to answer the question put to him about his working as a practising lawyer. The question thus was not irrelevant. However, according to unrebutted statement of the appellant, he passed LL.B. Examination in November, 1974. Undisputedly before a person is issued Licence to work as practising lawyer, he has to produce certificate of a senior lawyer that he got training under him for six months. So adding the period of six months to the date on which the appellant got LL.B. Degree, the date from which he was eligible to start practice comes to 31‑5‑1975. There is no evidence that during this period the appellant remained employed under any other employer. So he is entitled to back benefits from 5‑7‑1974, the date of his termination from service, upto 31‑5‑1975. But beyond that he is not entitled to any back benefits. However, if he earned any yearly increment during this period that would be added to his pay for the future but he will be entitled to arrears of this increment alongwith back benefits upto 31‑5‑1975. The appeal is thus partly accepted to this extent and the respondent is directed to act accordingly. A.E./641/Lb. P Appeal partly accepted.