1986 PLP 435 (PLC)
EJAZ AHMAD Versus FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
| Citation | 1986 PLP 435 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | EJAZ AHMAD Versus FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 435 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 435 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 435 (PLC) (EJAZ AHMAD Versus FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Sikandar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Petitioner not asserting before Labour Court that he remained jobless after impugned dismissed‑‑Not entitled to back benefits. Appellant with counsel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Petitioner not asserting before Labour Court that he remained jobless after impugned dismissed‑‑Not entitled to back benefits. Appellant with counsel. Nasim Sikandar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1985. The decision, dated 3‑6‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. Back benefits are allowed while re‑instating a worker for the reason that he remained out of job on account of the illegal order of dismissal, retirement or termination of services. So if he got a job elsewhere during the period he remained unemployed with his previous employer, he is not entitled to get back benefits on re‑instatement. Since such a worker is willing and ready to serve the employer but it prevented by the illegal order of termination of services, so if he got another employment or job, it cannot be said that he was available to serve the previous employer. Only the worker concerned knows if he got any job or not and the employer has to make an inquiry to find out such a fact. So initially it is the duty of the worker who claims back benefits to assert that he remained jobless or to disclose what actually he earned and then the onus is upon the employer, if he contests the plea, to prove that the worker in reality remained employed elsewhere.
3. The appellant in the present case only claimed back benefits but did not assert at any stage before the learned lower Court that he had remained jobless. So he is not entitled to back benefits.
4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E. Appeal dismissed.