' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.----This single judgment shall dispose of Labour Appeal No,56 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Javed Sajid v. Fauji Sugar Mills, Labour Appeal No,99 of 2006 titled. "Muhammad Tariq v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No, 100 of 2006 titled "Liaqat Ali v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,101 of 2006 titled "Nisar Ahmed v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,102 of 2006 titled "Shah Nawaz v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,103 of 2006 titled "Nemat Ali v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,104 of 2006 titled "Hafeez Masih v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No, 105 of 2006 titled "Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,106 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Aslam v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,107 of 2006 titled "Iqbal Ahmad Sanga v.
Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,108 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Idrees v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,109 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Nawaz v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,110 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Irshad v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,111 of 2006 titled "Munir Ahmed v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,112 of 2006 titled "Ghulam Sarwar v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,113 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Yousaf v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,114 of 2006 titled "Khursheed Ahmed v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,115 of 2006 titled "Shafqat Ali v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,116 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Khalid v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,117 of 2006 titled "Zahoor-ul-Hassan v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,118 of 2006 titled "Abdul Majeed v. Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,119 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Gulzar v.
Fauji Sugar Mills", Labour Appeal No,120 of 2006 titled "Muhammad Boota v. Fauji Sugar Mills" as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals and the appeals have been filed against Fauji Sugar Mills by its employees.
2. It is contended that learned Labour Court allowed the grievance petition vide order dated 19-12- 2005 and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellants herein as seasonal workmen in its establishment. The Court after having granted the main relief has declined the prayer of the appellants qua the back-benefits. Appellants being seasonal workers when approached the employer at the gate of the mill at the beginning of the crushing season, they showed their willingness to work for the employer. This shows that the appellants were available for the job in the establishment of the respondent and were not performing duty elsewhere but this material fact was ignored by the learned Labour Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has submitted that pleading of the appellants as well as their evidence is silent with regard to the fact that they remained jobless and due to non-assignment of duty in capacity of seasonal workers, the appellants are not entitled to back-benefits and their claim was rightly refused by the Court below.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
5. In order to claim back-benefits it is settled law that a workman is to assert in his grievance petition that he has been unemployed since his termination. He has also to depose in his examination-in-Chief. Once this is done by the workman the onus shifts on the employer to prove that the workman had been adequately employed.
6. Neither in the grievance petition nor in the examination-in-Chief the appellants have asserted that they had been unemployed and jobless during the period of their termination. There is a vague assertion in the petitions under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 that the appellants/employees are entitled to back-benefits and even this vague assertion is missing in the examination-in-chief of appellants before the learned Labour Court. The appellants have failed to plead in unequivocal terms as to their unemployment during the period of their unemployment.
7. For the foregoing the impugned judgment and order of the learned Labour Court is devoid of any infirmity or illegality, therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere in the impugned judgment and unsettled the same. The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.