' The decision dated 26th November, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad has been challenged to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. The ground given by the learned lower Court for disallowing back benefits to the appellant is that no evidence was produced to prove that the appellant remained jobless during the period of her dismissal from service. Back benefits are allowed while accepting the grievance petitions not for purpose of punishing the employer but for the reason that the worker remained out of job not for his fault. If the worker has earned his livelihood, he has to account for it to the employer before he can get a direction of payment of back benefits. If he has earned less than what he would have earned but for his uncalled for and unjustified removal from service, he is entitled to only the difference, but if he has earned more, he cannot be allowed back benefits. Since only the appellant knew what she had earned during the period of her dismissal from service, the onus is upon her to prove either that she remained totally jobless or that she earned less than what she would have earned if she had not been rem oved from service. Since in the present case, the appellant failed to prove that she remained jobless, she was rightly disallowed back benefits.
3. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.