' The decision, dated 2-9-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant.
2. The reason given by the learned lower Court for not allowing back benefits is that the appellant did not establish that he remained jobless after he was dismissed from service. In reality the appellant did not produce any evidence to this effect. Even he himself did not state in his statement recorded by the learned lower Court that he remained unemployed after his dismissal.
Back benefits are not awarded by way of imposing punishment of fine for wrongful dismissal. They are allowed for the reason that but for the wrong order of dismissal the employee would have earned his wages. If he gets employment elsewhere, he cannot claim back benefits from the employer on re-instatement. Since only he knows whether he got any employment, so the onus is upon him to prove that he remained jobless. The ordinary cases of set off are quite different from labour cases. In other cases the defendant knows what is due to him from the plaintiff, so he has to claim set off. But in labour cases the employer has no source to know if his dismissed or terminated employee has got any employment or not, so he is not in a position to come forward with a claim of set off.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.