WAQAR AHMAD Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , Ch. Fazal Hussain

ORDER

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order, dated 31st August, 1988, passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby decision dated 12-6-19fi of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore for reinstatement of the petitioner was upheld but in so far as it related to back benefits, was disallowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Dilkusha Enterprises Ltd. v. Abdul Rashid and others (1985 S C M R 1882), Muhammad Bashir v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1989 S C M R 1095), Gul Habib v. Federation of Pakistan (1988 P L C 645), Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. (1980 P L C 42) and Sohrab v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways (1981 P L C 862) contended that the petitioner took a specific plea in his statement that he remained out of job and, therefore, he was entitled to back benefits. The contention is devoid of any force. Neither the petitioner raised this plea in his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor he deposed in his statement before the Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed elseNvhc:re during the period of his suspension. He merely deposed in A his examination in-chief that "I may be reinstated in service with back benefits as I am jobless". The Labour Appellate Tribunal after appreciating the evidence rightly observed that the petitioner did not say that he remained jobless throughout the period he remained out of service and on the basis of such assertion back benefits were rightly disallowed to him. The case law cited by the learned counsel for petitioner is of little avail.

3. Be that as it may, Ch. Fazal Hussain, learned counsel for respondent has made a statement at the Bar that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner will be treated on leave of kind due for the period during which he remained out of job. The statement made by Ch. Fazal Hussain, Advocate is indeed laudable. I am also inclined to direct accordingly.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

H.B.T./W-4/L Order accordingly.