' The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 5-3-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad whereby the appellants have been directed to pay back benefits to the respondent.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that back benefits arc allowed where the worker has been directed to be reinstated in service and since the learned lower Court has not issued any such direction, no question of awarding hack benefits to the respondent could arise. The question in such cases is not whether the reinstatement has been sought or not and real question is whether the removal from service has been challenged. The respondent did challenge the order of his removal from service and he has not prayed for reinstatement, in as much as he has got a better job elsewhere and does not want to serve the appellants any more in future. Since the learned lower Court has found that the order of removal from service was not sustainable and since the respondent deposed in his statement, which went unrequited, that he from the date of his removal from service up to 4-8-1986 remained jobless, the learned lower Court has rightly allowed back benefits to the respondent for the said period.
3. The appeal is time barred also. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that since no date for announcement of the order was given, therefore, the appeal is not time barred.
The argument is not supported by the record. Presence of both the counsel for the parties is recorded in the decision, meaning thereby that the decision was announced in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The decision is dated 5-3-1988. Application for copy was made on 3-4- 1988. Copy was delivered on 6-4-1988 but appeal was presented on 30-4-1988 and thus is time barred.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine as time barred as well as on lc merits.