1989 PLP 7 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Dismissal‑‑Back benefits on re‑instatement‑‑Labour Court, on petition of employee directing that he be taken on duty with full back benefits‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal, while maintaining decision of Labour Court disallowing back benefits to employee on ground that he did not depose clearly in his evidence that he had remained jobless‑‑Employee in his evidence before Labour Court found to have stated that he had been throughout jobless doing nothing‑‑Order of Labour Appellate Tribunal refusing to grant back benefits to employee, held, was illegal and without lawful authority and that employee was entitled to back benefits as provided by Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner. Muhammad Awais for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1988. The only question that arises in this petition is whether back benefits should be granted to Salamat Masih petitioner in view of his having been re instated in service by the Punjab Labour Court No. 1 which judgment was upheld by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.

2. The petitioner was dismissed from service after inquiry on the charge of stealing 72 litres of Diesel Oil. The criminal prosecution filed against him in respect of the said charge resulted in his acquittal, the petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Punjab Labour Court which accepted his petition and directed that he be taken on duty with full back benefits. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal maintained the said decision, but did not allow him back benefits on the ground that he had not deposed clearly in his evidence that he had remained jobless from the date of his dismissal till the date of re‑instatement.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Punjab Road Transport Corporation. Salamat Masih, petitioner, in his evidence as P.W. 1 before the Punjab Labour Court did state that he had been throughout jobless doing nothing. This clearly indicates that he was jobless from the date of his dismissal till the date he gave evidence. This statement was sufficient to shift the burden on the employer to show that he had taken up some gainful employment prior to date of his re‑instatement, which was not done. In these circumstances, the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal refusing'' to grant back benefits to the petitioner, is illegal and without lawful authority.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, dated 23‑6‑1987, to the extent that it modifies the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, dated 13‑4 1987, so as to refuse back benefits to the petitioner, is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the back benefits as provided by the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. S.Q./S‑234/L Petition accepted.