ABDUR RAHMAN Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE

The facts of this case are that the petitioner was a conductor in the service of respondent No. 2 and was dismissed on 5‑1‑1983. The dismissal was on account of dishonesty but the Inquiry Officer observed that it was a case of carelessness in the discharge of his duty. The petitioner filed a grievance petition which was accepted by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore vide his order dated 20‑3‑1985 and the petitioner was reinstated with full back benefits. The respondent No. 2 Government Transport Service filed an appeal which was partly accepted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore vide order dated 9‑4‑1986 and back benefits were disallowed to the petitioner. This order is assailed in this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a finding of fact by both the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court as well as the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that order of dismissal of the petitioner was not sustainable. Having done so the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was not legally justified to disllow the back benefits as was originally granted by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court to the petitioner. He relies on 1994 PLC 346 (Syed Asghar Imam v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others). It is held in this case that the denial of back benefits to a workman should be with reference to the factum, whether or not be had earned during the relevant period. In the present case the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court in para.7 of his order dated 20‑3‑1985 held that there is clear evidence that since the dismissal Abdur Rahman was jobless. In this view of the finding onus was on the employer to disprove this which has not been discharged in this case. In these circumstances learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore was not legally justified to refuse the back benefits to the petitioner.

3. In view of above the impugned order dated 9‑4‑1986 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The petitioner is entitled to the back benefits as allowed to him by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court in his order dated 20‑3‑1985.

H.B.T./A-247/L Petition allowed.