Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ and 71 others VS Respondent: UNITED BANK LTD through Zonal Head, Hyderabad and another
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Mushtaq Ali Kazi Title:MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ and 71 others vs UNITED BANK LTD through Zonal Head,
Hyderabad and another Case No.: Appeals Nos. 278 to 349 of 1995 Date of Judgment:1993-11-28 Reported As: 1996 PLC 177 Result: Appeals dismissed Judgment DECISION ' These are 72 appeals by the workers of United Bank Limited, that while re-instating them in service the Labour Court did not grant them the back benefits. 2. In the grievance petition a formal claim was not made by the workers for back benefits but only they had made a statement in their Affidavits that they were jobless. On the other hand the Bank had not cross-examined the workers on the point of being jobless. The learned Labour Court held that since the workers are themselves to be blamed for not obtaining written orders of appointment and they did not agitate for a number of years to receive their orders, the blame lies on them also and they are not therefore entitted to any back benefits. 3. The grant of back benefits is not mandatory requirement of the order of re-instatement. It is to be considered separately and it is discretion of Court A to judge what back benefits if any may or may not be granted. In these cases the responsibility lay with the workers to obtain their orders of appointment in writing and they were indifferent to make efforts to obtain such orders. 4. Under the circumstances no back benefits were ordered by the lower Court. I accordingly find no reason for interference. The appeals are dismissed.
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.