LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD Versus DIN MUHAMMAD JAFRI
This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 15‑2‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. he respondent was a clerk taken in service on 1‑11‑1966. His services were terminated on the plea of economy‑cut. The appellants' case is that seniority list on sectional basis is maintained, but the learned lower Court has not accepted this plea and has found that common seniority list should have been acted upon and on that basis the principle of 'last come first go' was violated by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that according to the common seniority list of all the employees of the whole mills on the clerical side, the termination of the respondent was justified. Where there is one establishment, there can be only one seniority list in the same category. Where a particular class belongs to the same category, there should be common seniority list with regard to it and if any question of promotion or retrenchment arises, the questions are to be decided on the basis of common seniority list. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly found that the termination of the respondent was not justified. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in the petition the respondent did not name any person junior to him who may have been retained in service. Mentioning of this fact in the grievance petition was not necessary. The respondent stated in his statement that persons junior to him were working who were Shamim Ahmad, Zafar Ahmad, Zahoor , Nafees Ahmad, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Younus and Muhammad Aqil. Therefore, it was necessary to show that according to the common seniority list, the respondent was the junior most and the said persons were senior to him. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that this is not so.
3. However, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits since he did not assert that right from the date of his termination from service, he remained jobless. He rather stated, "Now‑a‑days I am jobless." It shows that the respondent got some job after the termination of his services but at the time he came into the witness box, he may be out of service. It was necessary for him in these circumstances to give period during which he remained employed elsewhere and wages which he earned, so that whatever he earned could be deducted from the back benefits, and for this reason his back benefits cannot be calculated and this is another reason for disallowing the said claim.
4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, back benefits are disallowed to the respondent.
A. E. /108/Lb.S Appeal partly accepted.