1994PLC 126 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 15th September, 1993. These two appeals which I propose to dispose of by a common decision have arisen in the following circumstances:‑‑ Abdul Razzaq the appellant in Appeal No. KAR‑670 of 1992 was working as a weaver with the respondent. He had filed a petition before the Labour Court for reinstatement in service, as he had been removed there from verbally on 5‑6‑1991. The respondent's version was that he had absconded. The Labour Court No. 1, Karachi after hearing the parties found that the termination of service was illegal and ordered reinstatement but without any back benefits, as according to it the applicant neither in his grievance notice, grievance petition nor in the affidavit had stated that he was jobless after his removal from service.

2. In Appeal No. KAR‑671 of 1992 the allegations of the petitioner were similar to the one referred to earlier. The rival version was the same with only the difference of date. The Labour Court No. 1 allowed this petition also, but refused to award back benefits for identical reasons.

3. Aggrieved by the refusal of the back benefits the petitioners have come in appeal. Neither there are any cross‑objections nor any counter appeals.

4. Mr. S.P. Lodhi learned representative has taken me through the record and pointed out that Abdul Razzaq in his petition had the following to say:‑‑ "It‑is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to order reinstatement of the applicant in service with continuity and wages for the forced and unlawful unemployment:'

5. The same words were repeated in the grievance notice. In paragraph 2 of his affidavit he had stated that "I say that my main application was drafted by my representative on my instructions and the contents of the same have. now again been read over to me which I say are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and for the sake of brevity the same be treated as part of this Affidavit.

6. Exactly the same words have been used in the other petition also and elsewhere and according to me it cannot be said that the expressions used do not convey the idea that the present appellants had been rendered jobless. The choice of works could be improved upon, but after all it is an effort forthcoming from a representative who can lay no claim for deft drafting. The period of forced and unlawful employment in my humble view is susceptible of being read as unemployed ever since, with the addition of the word "and" before unemployment. None of the appellants was cross‑examined on this score nor was there any suggestion made that they were gainfully employed elsewhere.

7. In my humble view the decisions in Muhammad Bashir and others v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1991 SCMR 2087 and General Manager, N.R.T.C. v. Muhammad Aslam 1992 SCMR 2169 be attracted to support the contention of the appellants that demands for back benefits had been made. However, in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 105 express mention of joblessness in the wake of removal, has not been insisted upon.

8. In the circumstances of the cases, before me, where no fault can even remotely be attributed to the appellants, they will be entitled to back benefits. I will therefore modify the impugned order and allow the back benefits to both, the appellants. H.B.T./2231/Lb.S Order accordingly.