Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: UNION FOUNDRY and STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS VS Respondent: MUNIR AHMAD
1988 P L C 581
1988 P L C 581
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
UNION FOUNDRY and STEEL RE‑ROLLING MILLS
Versus
MUNIR AHMAD and another
Appeals Nos. LHR. 366 and 367 of 1985, decided on 22nd January, 1986.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Reinstatement‑‑Back benefits are awarded to compensate worker for remaining jobless and not as punishment to employer for illegal dismissal‑‑Worker not asserting that he remained jobless after dismissal‑‑Labour Court awarding back benefits‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, modified by Appellate Tribunal, disallowing back benefits.
Syed Noor Ahmad for Appellant.
Respondents in person.
Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1986.
JUDGMENT
The appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 7‑5‑1985 recorded by the learned Labour Court No.2 Lahore, wherein only the point of back benefits has been raised.
2. The learned labour Court has not recorded any reason for allowing back benefits. The perusal of the statements of the respondents shows that they did not assert that after dismissal they remained jobless. Back benefits were awarded to compensate the workers for remaining out of job not for any fault of theirs. If they got some job the amount which they earned is to be deducted from the back benefits. Back benefits are not awarded as a punishment for illegal dismissal. So, since the respondents did not assert. They remained jobless, they were wrongly awarded back benefits.
3. As a result of the observations made above the appeals are accepted and modifying the impugned decisions of the learned' labour Court back benefits are disallowed to the respondents.
A. E. /84/Lb.P Appeals accented.