1984 PLC(CS) 1696

The decision dated 25th March, 1984 delivered by the learned Presid ing Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant. The reason given by the learned lower Court for disallowing back benefits is that the appellant did not state that he remained unemployed during the period of dismissal. The appellant has filed an affidavit with the appeal but it disproves his claim to back benefits. He says in his affidavit that "he has been driving rickshaw during this period on daily wages basis". He also says that it was not a regular feature. Regular employment is not necessary. If the worker has taken up employment under another employer, the wages earned by him by such employment is to be deducted from back benefits. The employment need not be regular or permanent. Since for the whole time the appellant remained employed and he has not disclosed his total earnings, he is not entitled to back benefits.

2. As a result, the appeal is dismissed having no force.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.