' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 16-6-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Sargodha, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was retired from service and, therefore, he challenged the order in the Labour Court. Since the previous decision of the High Court was that the persons no longer in service are not workmen, the grievance petition was ordered to be returned and this Court observed that if the Supreme Court where the question was sub juice decided that such persons are covered by the definition of workman, the respondent would be entitled to get his case decided on merits. The Supreme Court, therefore, holding that not the N.I.R.C. But the Labour Courts had jurisdiction to decide the cases of the persons removed from service, had remanded the case for decision of other points. The High Court has after the remand of the cases held that the persons for whose termination from service a petition is pending are workmen, inasmuch as such petitions are to be decided as industrial disputes according to section 25-A(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The respondent, therefore, applied to the learned lower Court for the decision of his case on merits, but in the meantime the respondent made an application to the appellant accepting the proposal that he could be reinstated if he was inclined to forego back benefits. The respondent accordingly did so and thus he was reinstated in service by the appellant vide order Exh. R-11.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the respondent had agreed to forego his right to back benefits and on this condition he was reinstated in service, he was not entitled to back benefits. The respondent admitted his signatures on application Exh. R-7 but contended that his signatures were received on a blank paper. The statement of the respondent that on a blank paper his signatures were received stands controverted by the statement of RW-1. The said witness had not said any such thing in his examination-in-chief but the counsel for the respondent was not wise enough not to cross-examine the witness on the point.
So, the witness in cross-examination deposed that the respondent had produced before him application Exh. R-7 and that it was wrong that his signatures were received on a blank paper. The learned lower Court has held that under pressure the signatures of the respondent were received on Exh. R-7. The reason given is that since the respondent was jobless, therefore, he was compelled by circumstances to sign Exh. R-7. I am afraid this is not the case of the respondent. His case rather is, as mentioned above, that his signatures were received on a blank paper. The respondent should not have agreed to forego back benefits. He is bound by his agreement and since he has failed to prove that his signatures were received on a blank paper, he cannot say that he did not agree to forego his back benefits. The respondent is estopped from claiming back benefits after letting the appellant to believe that if he was reinstated, he would not claim back benefits. It appears that since the respondent was not sure if the Supreme Court would hold that Labour Courts have jurisdiction, therefore, he in his own wisdom thought it proper to get reinstatement by foregoing his right to back benefits. The rulings relied upon by the learned lower Court such as PLD 1980 Lah. 337 and PLD 1975 SC 224 being distinguishable are not helpful to the respondent.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and back benefits are disallowed to the respondent.