The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 20-11-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, whereby Muhammad Farooq (hereinafter to be called "the respondent") was directed to be re-instated in service without back benefits. The Lahore Development Authority (hereinafter to be described as "the appellant") has in its appeal challenged the direction of re-instatement of the respondent, whereas the respondent has in his appeal claimed back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent was originally appointed as a Chowkidar on 25-4-1974. He was later be posted as Field Operator on ad hoc basis vide order, dated 31-3-1981 with effect from 1-4-1981 vide order copy Exh.R.3. On 22-3-1983 his services were terminated vide order copy Exh. P.1 on the ground that he was a non-Matric, whereas the minimum qualification for the post of Field Operator was Matric.
There is no dispute that the respondent is a non-Matric. According to budget copy EXh.R.6. The minimum qualification for the post of Field Operator is Matric. It has been argued that many non- Matric persons are serving as Field Operators. This cannot be a ground to direct the appellant to post the respondent as a Field Operator. As he is non-Matric and it has not been shown by the respondent that minimum qualification is not Matric, he could not remain on the post of Field Operator. However, there was no justification in terminating his services. Since his substantive post was of Chowkidar, he should have been reverted to the said post. Since his posting against the post of Field Operator was only on ad hoc basis and he had not become permanent, he retained his lien against his substantive post of Chowkidar.
3. The respondent has claimed back benefits but he did not say in his statement that he remained jobless. Back benefits are allowed only as compensation for remaining out of job. If a worker gets some work, it cannot be said that he was ready and willing to serve his previous employer. It, therefore, is necessary for him to at least assert that he remained jobless. If he does so, the onus is then upon the employer to show the otherwise.
4. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the despondent is directed to be reverted as Chowkidar with effect from the date his services were terminated. But he is not allowed back benefits. The appeal of the respondent is thus dismissed.