' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---Through this appeal, the appellant has prayed for modification of the judgment dated 29-10-2003 passed by Sindh Labour Court No,II, Karachi whereby the appellant was directed to be paid compensation instead of ordering for his reinstatement, and no order was passed for grant of back-benefits.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the appellant was a permanent worker and his services were terminated by respondents without issuing him an order in writing.
3. The appellant challenged the order of his termination before Sindh Labour Court No II Karachi through Grievance Petition No 39 of 2002. Respondents categorically denied the relationship of employment, and challenged the maintainability of the petition. Both the parties adduced evidence.
4. On conclusion of the case, learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was a permanent workman and that his termination was -unlawful. Resultantly his application was allowed.
5. However, learned Labour Court declined to reinstate the appellant in service and in lieu thereof awarded him compensation equivalent to the wages of 20 months, yet no order was passed in respect of back-benefits.
6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he was entitled to the back-benefits as a matter of right as his termination was unconditionally declared to be unlawful by the Labour Court. In order to support his contention, learned Counsel, for the appellant has placed reliance on the cases reported in 1993 SCM R 105, 2004 SCM R 1892 and unreported decision of the Honourable Supreme Court Petition No,S-537-K of 2005.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent has chosen to remain absent, without any intimation.
8. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant have been iconsidered and the material placed on record had been perused.
9. The perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court reveals that the learned Labour Court after considering the evidence placed on record arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was a workman having a permanent status and that his termination, being without any order in writing, was violative of law.
10. However, learned Labour Court instead of reinstating the appellant, deemed it appropriate to award him compensation equivalent to 20 months wages. But strangely enough the Labour Court did not award him back-benefits. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the appellant has remained in gainful employment during the period he remained out of job. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the learned Labour Court to have awarded back-benefits to the appellant, as ruled by the Honourable Apex Court in the case reported as 1983 SCM R 105.
' In the case of Shah Murad Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Mir Ali Muhammad and others reported in SBLR 2005 Sindh, I have allowed back-benefits besides compensation to the workers in lieu of reinstatement.
This view was approved by Honourable Supreme Court vide dated 26-9-2005 and the Civil Petitions Nos.C.P. No,537-K of 2005 to C.P. No,544-K of 2005 challenging the said judgments were dismissed.
' For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to the back-benefits for the period during which he remained out of job on account of illegal termination. Appeal stands allowed in the above terms.