' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated llth March, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore to the extent it did not allow back benefits to the appellant.
2. The allegation against the appellant was of misconduct. The learned lower Court has directed his reinstatement for the reason that the enquiry held against the appellant was improper and defective. The ground for declaring the enquiry as improper is that no evidence of any prosecution witness or defence witness was recorded. Back benefits have not been allowed to the appellant for the reason that he did not state that he remained unemployed during the period of dismissal. In reality his statement made before the learned lower Court is silent on the point. An employee cannot at one and the same time remain in service of two employers. Therefore, if a dismissed or terminated person claims back benefits, be has to show that during the period of dismissal or termination, as the case may be, he remained unemployed. If he had got employment elsewhere the previous employer is entitled to claim set off on his reinstatement. Since the employer has no source to know if his dismissed employee had remained employed elsewhere, the employee has to claim and show that he remained unemployed. If he has remained unemployed, he has to disclose the particulars of the employer and of the earnings, so that the set off may be claimed by the party against whom back benefits have been claimed.
3. As a result, the appeal, having no force, is dismissed.