' M. ZAFARULLAH, J.-Aftab Ahmed respondent No, 1 was working as a line jobber when his services were terminated for misconduct on 24th August, 1982. He challenged the termination in the Labour Court but his petition was dismissed on 20th December, 1982. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal, however, has ordered the re-instatement of respondent No, 1 with full back benefits vide its order dated 23rd May, 1984. The employers have challenged the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal a constitutional petition. This petition was admitted to consider the question of back benefits only as the petitioners press for their petition only to that extent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners is of the view that the respondent No, 1 was not entitled to back benefits as he was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period he remained out of job. It is also argued that where the reinstatement is for technical reasons the back benefits are to be withheld.
3. As regards gainful employment of respondent No, I even though the inquiry proceedings do mention that the respondent No, 1 was working in a factory outside but the findings of the Inquiry Officer are silent on this question. In the absence of any finding to the effect that the respondent No, 1 was gainfully employed elsewhere the petitioners cannot now claim a set off against the back benefits. As regards the question whether the reinstatement has been ordered for technical reasons, a simple reading of paragraph 3 of the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 23rd May, 1984 is enough to show that the re-instatement has been ordered on the ground that the charges of misconduct were not proved, for reasons of vagueness of the charges. In other words re-instatement has not been ordered for technical reasons.
4. Ordinarily a reinstatement means a re-instatement with full back benefits unless they are withheld for specific reasons. The plea that the back benefits should not be allowed comes in the nature of a set off and justification has to be provided by the opposite party before the back benefits can be withheld. In the absence of any such justification obviously the back benefits cannot be with held. In the present case the orders of termination have been found to be illegal.
The petitioners have not shown why back benefits should be withheld. There is no justification, therefore for issuing a writ in this case. The writ petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.