' The appeal titled above challenges the decision, dated 28th March, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,
2. Lahore to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. The ground giving for not allowing back benefits is that the appellant did neither urge nor prove that during the period of dismissal he remained unemployed. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any assertion of the appellant to this effect. Since the very reason for which back benefits have been disallowed by the learned lower Court is that it was not shown that the appellant did not remain gainfully employed, the appellant should have at least filed an affidavit alongwith the appeal to the said effect. The failure on his part to do so shows that the affidavit if filed, would have been false. Back benefits are allowed for the reason that the worker concerned remained unemployed, therefore, should assert and prove this fact. The employer has a right to claim set off' and can do so if the worker discloses anything about his employment during dismissal. Needless to say that the employer has no source to know about it, whereas the worker knows about his earnings. So, it is incumbent upon the worker, if he claims back benefits, to disclose about his earnings. However, only in the case of employment under another employer set off can be claimed.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.