YAQOOB SHAH vs SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P and otherss
This civil appeal challenges a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which reinstated the appellant in service but denied his claim for back-benefits. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having been reinstated after an unjustified removal, was entitled to back-benefits despite the respondents' argument that he failed to prove he did not work for gain during the period of his removal. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to back-benefits, primarily on the principle of consistency, noting that other similarly situated employees removed from service had been granted back-benefits upon reinstatement. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence on the record suggesting the appellant had worked for gain during the period of his removal. The Court established the principle that where an employee is reinstated due to an unjustified removal, and where similarly situated employees have been granted back-benefits, the principle of consistency dictates that the appellant cannot be discriminated against and is entitled to the same treatment regarding back-benefits.
- Is an employee entitled to back-benefits upon reinstatement if similarly situated employees were granted such benefits?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the employer to show that a reinstated employee worked for gain during the period of removal?
- Can a Service Tribunal deny back-benefits to a reinstated employee without evidence of misconduct or gainful employment elsewhere during the period of removal?
ORDER
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil appeal with leave of this Court dated d June, 2001 is directed against the judgment, dated 23rd February, 2001 (Yaqoob Shah v. Secretary, Board of Revenue N.- W.F.P. And others) passed by learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby the said appeal was allowed, thereby the appellant was reinstated in service but so far the back-benefits claimed by him, the same were declined hence, the present appeal.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. Of petition as well as in the impugned judgment.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the other employees who were removed from service or their appeal before the Service Tribunal they were reinstated along with back-benefits but the appellant has been discriminated in that respect, therefore, he is entitled to back-benefits, considering that there was no fault on his part whereby he could have been removed from service. He has placed reliance upon Qadeer Ahmad v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another PLD 1990 SC 787. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that because the appellant could not bring anything on record that he did not work for gain during the period of removal from service, therefore, he is not entitled to the back-benefits. He has placed reliance upon Pakistan Automobile Corporation Ltd. Through Chairman v. Mansoor-ul- Haque and others 2004 SCM R 1308.
4. We do find merit and substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and do not find any merit and force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant that other employees who were removed from service on their reinstatement they were granted back-benefits. In the circumstances on the principles of consistency the appellant would also be entitled to same treatment with regard to back-benefits and thereby he cannot be discriminated. Besides there is nothing on the record that the appellant worked for gain during the period of his removal. On the contrary the appellant has prayed for his back-benefits even in his appeal before the Service Tribunal. We find that the Service Tribunal has erred in not granting the back-benefits to the appellant considering that there was nothing on the conduct of the appellant which warranted his 'removal from service.
5. In the circumstances the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to back-benefits, consequently, the appeal is allowed.
Cited by 1 case
- Shahid Mehmood vs The Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 1