1. ' Muhammad Islam, appellant has challenged the decision dated 24th January, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby his petition under section 25-A, of I. R.
2. 0., claiming back benefits and commission was dismissed.
3. ' The facts are that the appellant was dismissed from service on 31st October, 1978 but on his Grievance petition was directed to be reinstated with back benefits. The date of order is 19th September, 1979. In compliance with the order of reinstatement the appellant was given duty but was transferred from P. U. T. C. To P. R. T. B. He challenged the transfer order and his petition was accepted on 22nd December, 1979 and he was directed to be reinstated with back benefits. The respondent challenged both the orders in appeal but both the appeals were dismissed. Appeal No, LHR-683/79, was accepted in the following words "appeal No, LHR-683/79, is accepted to the extent that the finding of the Labour Court regarding competence of the District Manager of P. U. T. C. Is set aside but the order or re-instatement of Muhammad Islam is upheld .The other appeal was accepted in the following words "appeal No, LHR 17/80-Punjab against the decision 22nd December, 1980 is dismissed as having become infructuous. The P. U. T. C is therefore directed to reinstate Muhammad Islam respondent immediately with back benefits from 16th August, 1979 when the respondents was reinstated by the Labour Court". Since the Appellate Court directed the payment of back benefits from a particular date i. e. 16th August, 1979 the Labour Court was justified in not ordering the recovery of back benefits from 31st October, 1978 the date of the original dismissal of the appellant. The Labour Court for the appellant has said that the date of 16th August, 1979 was put by mistake. May it be so but since the direction is specific and the error does not appear to be clerical or tupical nor it was got corrected back benefits cannot be allowed from some earlier date.
4. ' The learned counsel has also argued that the respondent has not allowed commission to the appellant for the period he remained out of service. Commission is given on the income. Since the appellant admittedly did not work and thus did not earn profits he is not entitled to commission.
5. The other difficulty is that even if it be held that he is entitled to commission question arises what will be the amount of commission, because it is allowed according to the profits earned. It cannot be said what income would have earned for the respondent if he had not been dismissed.
6. ' In the circumstances discussed above the Labour- Court order is not subject to any exception and thus the appeal being without force is dismissed.