DECISION This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances: The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he had been appointed as a weaver by the respondent-Mill on 2-1-1989 and his services came to be verbally terminated on 18-12-1989. He had sent the grievance notice on 27-1-1990 and finding no satisfaction filed the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
2. The petition was resisted on a number of grounds which included the absence of any relationship between the parties: The other grounds were that the number of the employees had always remained less than 10 and as such the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable, and that the grievance notice had not been received.
3. The petitioner was his own witness and an affidavit on behalf of the respondent had been filed by Salim Shaikh, the Proprietor of the Factory, but as he could not be available for cross- examination, there is no evidence on the record.
4. The Labour Court found all the material issues in favour of the petitioner and allowed the petition with full back benefits resulting in this appeal.
5. The appellant had stated in his affidavit that the mill employed 500 persons and also that he had despatched the grievance notice and produced the Acknowledgement Receipt. Nothing worthwhile could be elicited from him in cross-examination. As against this there is no evidence at all to rebut it. The record shows that in spite of the closure of the appellants' case an opportunity was provided to him to produce the witness for cross-examination but that again was not availed and the case was kept for argument. The second Application in the circumstances of the case was properly rejected.
6: Under the circumstances there is no reason to interfere with the order in regard to the reinstatement.
7. However, there is force in the contention that the order of full back benefits is not justified in view of the fact that the respondent at no stage had anywhere mentioned that he was jobless or something to that effect, after his services had been terminated. That is fully borne out from the record and in that view of the matter looking to the principles. Laid down in Muhammad Bashir v.
Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1991 SCMR 2087 the award of the back benefits cannot be sustained.
8. As a result while maintaining the order of re-instatement I will set aside the order in regard to the back benefits. With this modification the appeal stands dismissed.