1. ' MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, J.---Respondent was an employee of the appellant and was carrying on weaving work on the looms at the piece rate wages for different type/quality fortnightly at the rate of Rs,3,000. Appellant had admitted that respondent had worked as weaver commencing from the year, 2002 on different periods. The respondent has urged that the appellant had terminated his services w,e,f, 11-7-2004, whereas this fact was denied by the appellant on the premises that the services of the respondent were not terminated, he was not interested in employment but wanted to extract the money from the establishment as spelled out from the proceeding before the Labour Department upon the termination of services, respondent has resorted to file Grievance Petition before the Labour Court, which was allowed with the direction for reinstate in terms of section 46(5)
2. Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The appellant was directed to pay compensation equivalent to 12 months pay last drawn as well as back benefit from the date of the termination viz. 11-7-2004 till 25-3-2006.
3. ' Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, has contended that the trial Court has erred in law by granting two reliefs to the respondent simultaneously as under section 46(5) Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, a workman is entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement, adverting to the word "Reinstatement", the reliance has been laid on the definition laid down as follows:---
(1) Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary - Revised Edition with Supplement ' Reinstate: To restore to or-re-establish in a former station or condition.
(2) Black's Law Dictionary-4th Edition ' Reinstate: To reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition, or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed. Collins v. U.S., 16 Ct., Cl. 22; Lowry v. Aenta Life Ins. Co., Tex. Civ. App., 120 S.W. 2d 505, 507.
(3) The. New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary-1980 Edition ' Reinstate: To instate again; to place again in possession or in a former state.
(4) Words and Phrases Legally Defined, Butter Worths-Second Edition ' Reinstate: It appears to me that reinstatement involves putting the specified person back, in law and in fact, in the same position as he occupied in the undertaking before the employer terminated his employment. (1943) 1 K.B. 462, per Tucker, J., at p.466.
(5) Stroud's Judicial Dictionary-Third Edition ' Reinstate: "Reinstatement" (Essential Work (General Provisions) Order, 1942); the natural and primary meaning to "to reinstate" as applied to a man who has been dismissed, is to replace him in the position from which he was dismissed and so restore the status quo ante the dismissal (Dixon v. Patterson), 1943, S.C. (J) 78, 83, and see Barr and Stroud v. Adair, 1945, S.C., (J) 23, 39). It is not sufficient merely to pay the man wages without providing him with work (Jackson v. Fisher's Foils, (1944) K.B. 462). He must be reinstated at the same place of work (Powell Duffrun, Ltd. v. Rhodes, (1946) 1 All E.R. 666).
4. ' S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that the compensation was available to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement, whereas in para-2 of the written reply, it was specifically pleaded that the services of the respondent were never terminated by the respondent and establishment was ready and willing to continue with his services, on the point of back benefits, it is urged that the principle has been laid down in the case of Muhammad Bashir and others v.
5. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others 1991 SCM R 2087 that back benefits do not automatically follow the order of reinstatement where the order of dismissal or removal has been set aside; it is stressed that the burden to establish that the workman was engaged for employment during the period he remained out of service was on employer.
6. ' It is next urged that the trial Court has erred in granting two reliefs simultaneously to the respondent on the mere fact that the Labour Court was also vested power to award compensation did not take away its authority of reinstatement of a worker, only restriction placed on Labour Court was that it could award compensation in addition to the reinstatement of the workman, as held in the case of Messrs Ashraf Sugar Mills Ltd., v. Manzoor Ahmed 2006 SCM R 1751 that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, is beneficial legislation enacted with the object of ameliorating the working conditions of workmen by providing necessary safeguards, legislature intended to enlarge jurisdiction and powers of Labour Court in order to strengthen them further, thus provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, are to be construed liberally so as to advance the remedy and to suppress the mischief."
7. ' Dilating on the point of compensation, it has been further laid down on page No,1754 of the case referred supra that only restriction placed on Labour Court is that it cannot award compensation in addition to the reinstatement of a workman. In the case of Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582 at page 683, it was held that the words "in lieu of"
8. ' It is explicitly clear from the rule enunciated by the apex Court that the trial Court has erred in law by granting simultaneously two reliefs to the respondent, however, at this stage, Mr. S.M. Yaqoob has contended that the appellant was ready and willing to accept the respondent as one of his employee.
9. ' Mr. Bacha Fazal Manan, learned counsel for the respondent has conceded to this effect, therefore, the respondent is directed to join the services with the appellant w,e,f, 11-12-2006.
10. ' Adverting to the question of the back benefits, much stress has been laid by Mr, Bacha Fazal Manan, referring to the Grievance petition and the affidavit-in-evidence filed by the respondent that respondent remained jobless w,e,f, 11-7-2004, did not carry out work for gain, in this context the onus is shifted upon the establishment to produce the evidence in rebuttal, however, Mr. S.M.
11. Yaqoob has contended that from the day of filing of the written reply, the stand of the appellant was that the services of the respondent were not terminated as well as in the complaint filed before the Labour Department by the respondent, the plea of the appellant, was consistent that they were ready and willing to accept the respondent as Weaver in the establishment although the establishment was not governed by the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 as the strength of the employees was less than 15. Taking into consideration, the attending circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant back benefits to the respondent.
12. ' In view of the circumstances, impugned order is hereby set aside IF with the direction to the respondent to join the appellant's establishment, on 11-12-2006, ' With the above modification Labour Appeal No,124 of 2006, stands disposed of with no order as to costs, with the directions to the appellant to provide all legal facilities to respondent as admissible under the labour laws.