Back-benefits

2014 PLC 164 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 41Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionUnfair labour practice"Workman", proof ofBack-benefitsPrinciple of no work no payApplicabilityLabour Court allowed grievance notice and reinstated employees with back-benefitsJudgment passed by Labour Court was maintained by Labour Appellate TribunalPlea raised by employer was that employees were officers and not "workmen"ValidityOnly nature of job/work could determine the status of worker/workman and designation was not determining factor

Employees claimed to have performed their duties as "workers", therefore, it was inevitable upon them to have disclosed their nature of job in grievance notice as well as in application under S.41 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008, but the same was not done and both the Courts below failed to take note of such important aspect and feature of the case

To invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court for maintaining proceedings within the ambit of labour laws, the status of applicant as "worker" and his termination should be the result of industrial dispute were sine qua non

Reinstatement of employees with back benefits was contrary to the principle "no work no pay"

Back-benefits were not to be allowed as punishment to employer or exemplary in favour of employees but was meant just to accommodate an employee who had suffered on account of losing his job and by not availing a gainful job within the intervening period

Labour Court as well as Labour Appellate Tribunal misread and misappreciated evidence/ material available on record

High Court set aside the judgments passed by two Courts below and remanded the case to Labour Court for decision afresh

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2013 PLC 326 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 25-AGrievance petitionDismissal from serviceRe­instatementBack-benefitsEntitlementLabour Court re-instated the workman along with back benefitsPetitioner had not placed any evidence on record that during the intervening period he was not doing any other jobEffect

Petitioner workman was obliged have to shown that during the intervening period of his dismissal from service and re-instatement, he remained jobless, otherwise petitioner could not competently claim back-benefits and he would only be entitled to receive the same from the date of order of re-instatement passed by the Labour Court

Appeal was partially allowed

Judgment of the Labour Court was modified accordingly

Workman was granted back-benefits from the date of the judgment of Labour Court.

2009 PLC(CS) 477 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Dismissal from serviceBack-benefits

Service Tribunal, on appeal, reinstated the employee and allowed the employers to conduct a fresh enquiry and left the question of back-benefits dependant upon the result of fresh enquiry proceedings

Service Tribunal further directed, that in case of failure of the employers to initiate and conclude the de novo proceedings within a period of four months the employee shall be entitled to all the back benefits

Employee, however, could get the relief of his reinstatement only by resorting to the constitutional petition before High Court

High Court had not debarred the employers/Bank from conducting the enquiry but had passed directions for completing the enquiry expeditiously preferably within the period of three months and direction to the employee to cooperate in holding the enquiry

Employers/Bank, however could not initiate enquiry proceedings within the period of four months stipulated by the Service Tribunal, as a consequence thereof, they had been directed to make payment of back benefits to the employee

Effect

Held, such directions of the High Court were neither perverse nor fallacious, rather absolutely just and proper as the employers could not be permitted to seek premium for the acts of apathy, stoicism and impassivity, displayed by them

No case for grant of leave to appeal to Supreme Court was, thus made out

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3).