The decision, dated 10-7-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, has been challenged whereby direction was issued to the appellant to allow duty to the respondent as Badli Conductor without back benefits. Cross-objections have also been brought on behalf of the respondent for claiming back benefits and they are being disposed of alongwith the appeal.
2. The case of the respondent was that he was taken in service as Badli and he worked from 25-11- 1981 to 16-6-1982 continuously and thus became a permanent Conductor. He in his statement also said that his service was verbally terminated on 20-6-1982. The case of the appellant was that the name of the respondent was taken on the approved list of the Badli Conductors and he was given duty as such against leave vacancy at the rate of Rs.21 per day. R.W. 1 stated that on daily wages basis the respondent was given duty. The law relating to Badli is contained in Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and there is no conception of Badli as shown by the appellant. There is not rule that names of certain persons may be brought on the list. Since in the present case the respondent served continuously as Badli for more than three months i.e. From 25-11-1981 to 15-6- 1982 he became permanent Conductor and was entitled to be absorbed against a permanent vacancy. R.W. 1 no doubt stated that the respondent was never '-- terminated but this he said in the light of Exh. R-1 and R-2. Since the respondent had become permanent after serving as Badli Conductor for more than three months the action of the appellant in disallowing duty 'to him after 15-6-1982 amounted to termination of service and he rightly stated that his service had beer, terminated. The respondent was to be absorbed as a permanent conductor as he had become permanent. He, therefore, could not be terminated or relieved from service. The learned lower Court directed the respondent to report for duty as conductor, wrongly relying upon the statement of the respondent. The direction should have been to re-instate the respondent.
3. So far as cross objections of the respondent are concerned the respondent is not entitled to back benefits inasmuch as he neither urged nor proved that he remained jobless from the time of termination of service. I do not find any force in the argument of the respondent that since the respondent succeeded not on a technical ground he is entitled to back benefits. Even in cases where a worker has been e-instated on merits he is entitled to back benefits if he has remained jobless. Back benefits are allowed not as a punishment to the employee or wrongful termination, but to compensate the worker for remaining jobless. So the respondent was not entitled to back benefits.
4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is dismissed and accepting the cross- objections partly, the appellant is directed to re-instate the respondent as permanent Conductor right from the date he was terminated. However, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits as he did not state that he remained jobless after he was terminated' from service.