Sh. ASHRAF SAEED Versus MESSRS AIZAD BEVERAGE INDUSTRIES LTD.

1. The only question which needs determination in this appeal is, whether the appellant should be allowed back benefits.

2. The appellant, Mr. Ashraf Saeed was working as Personal Assistant to the Chief Executive, Aizad Beverage Industries. Samundri Road, Lyallpur. In February 1974, he was transferred to Karachi. Instead of leaving for Karachi he challenged the transfer order in the Junior Labour Court. He obtained a stay order but it was vacated after a few days. However the ap pellant filed various applications to obtain leave. The Junior Labour Court passed an order on 7 th May 1974, holding that the transfer order was mala fide and it was cancelled. The respondent filed an appeal. It was decided by this Court on 13th June 1974. The appeal was accepted and the order of the Junior Labour Court was set aside, during these proceedings the respon dent passed an order of dismissal on 30th May 1974, on the ground that the appellant remained absent from duty since 27th February 1974. Again this order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant in the Junior Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The said Court ordered his re-instatement on 6th December. 1974, on the ground that the appellant was dismissed without holding domestic inquiry. Regard ing back benefits it was ordered that the respondent would hold a fresh inquiry for the alleged misconduct and the back benefits would depend upon the result of fresh inquiry. Against this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. He claimed that he is entitled to back benefits. The view of the Surd Labour Appellate Tribunal has been consistently the same with respect to back benefits. Reference can be made to 1972 P L C 220 and 1974 P L C Note 145. The view expressed by the said Tribunal was that the back benefits should depend upon the result of the inquiry to be hold by the employer. The short reason for this view was that had the inquiry been proper and the employee was found guilty of the charge, he would not have A been entitled to any back benefits and on the other hand, if an inquiry charge was not proved, he would have to be re-instated with back benefits.

3. Keeping in view the above authorities, the learned Junior Labour Court was justified not to allow any back benefits. The appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.