DECISION This is an application for review on the ground that the persons namely (1) Wazir Zada,
(2) DawaKhan, (3) Jahan Dad, and (4) Mohammad Nasir cannot get double benefit. Reliance has been placed on S. C. Judgment reported in PLD 1970 SC 415 at p. 419. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in that case that whatever benefit these employees may have received elsewhere the applicant would be entitled to claim a set-off in respect of the amount these four persons received during the course of their employment elsewhere.
2. Wazir Zada was employed on 18th of June 1973 as Press Operator with National Motors Ltd., Karachi. Similarly Dawa Khan was also employed on the same date as Press Operator and they continue in their employment with National Motors Ltd. Messrs Haidery Tin Factory would be entitled to claim a set off in respect of these two persons for whatever amount they have received in the course of their employment with National Motors Limited.
3. Now remains the case of Messrs Jahan Dad and Mohammad Nasir. So far as Jab an Dad is concerned the Certificate of the General Manager, Pakistan Navy Dockyard, Karachi establishes that Jahan Dad was employed with effect from the 7th of September 1973 as a Casual Labourer in the Pakistan Naval Dockyard. So far as Mohammad Nasir is concerned he was employed with effect from the 6th of August 1974 in the Karachi Omni Bus Service. Messrs Haidery Tin Factory has not been able to establish the exact amount these four persons are receiving or have received during the course of their employment with other persons. The short point that remains for consideration is that Messrs Haidery Tin Factory would be entitled to claim a set-off in respect of the amount that these persons have received during the course of their employment elsewhere. In these circumstances I would order that the persons against whom 1 had issued notices should be re-instated and the respondents are entitled to a set-off in respect of the amount these four persons have received during the period that they were employed elsewhere.l The opponents to whom notices had been issued have denied before me thatU they were employed elsewhere except with the persons who are now named byl the applicant. I would order that these four persons be re-instated. The applicant-Company would be entitled to a set-off in respect of amount received during the course of their employment with other persons.
4. I would modify my order dated the 31st of October 1974. I had not issued notices to rest of the ten persons.