1. ' This appeal arises from the decision dated 20-5-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement was accepted but he was not allowed back benefits. In this appeal he claims back benefits.
2. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on 18-2-1981 the proceedings of the enquiry were started and Salim Masih complainant, was enquired what he know about this case and he said that he had no knowledge but his statement was not recorded and the enquiry was postponed. The appellant made an application to the Enquiry Officer to that effect and told him that he was not holding impartial enquiry. No doubt such an application is on the file but there are no proceedings of 18-2-1981, nor the presence on the said date of Salim Masih is recorded. The enquiry file shows that the proceedings were started from 19-2-1981.Salim Masih was examined on 22-2-1981 and he was duly cross-examined by the appellant, but the appellant did not put any question to him to the effect that he had on 18-2-1981 stated before the Enquiry Officer that he did not know anything about this case. If the contention made by the appellant that on 18-2-1981 Salim Masih had said that he did not know the facts of the case, he must have put such a question to him in cross-examination. Omission on the part of the appellant to put such a question raises a presumption that what he states and wrote in his application dated 18-2-1980 is not correct. He did not move the Management for changing the Enquiry Officer. If the Enquiry Officer in reality had not recorded the statement of Salim Masih on 18-2-1981 to the effect that the witness did not know anything, the appellant must have asked for the replacement of the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel has further argued that the statement of Salim Masih is exculpatory. This is not so. Salim Masih did implicate the appellant in his statement made on 22-2-1981. The appellant was reinstated on account of technical defects, therefore, back benefits were rightly disallowed to him.
3. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.