' This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 6-8-1986 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore to the extent it did not allow back benefits to the appellant.
Cross-objections have also been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein the contention worth consideration is that the learned lower Court has wrongly found that the appellant is covered by the definition of workman.
2. The appellant is an analyst and he deposed in his statement that for carrying on analysis he had to work with his own hands. This evidence does not stand rebutted.. Even otherwise this is apparent that while examining for the analysis of the articles, the analyst has to handle the things to be analysed and the microscope and other implements. Obviously hands would be used for handling all these articles. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly decided that the appellant is covered by the definition of workman.
3. The appellant deposed that he was jobless thus he was entitled to back benefits. The learned lower Court disallowed the .Back benefits on the ground that the appellant was proceeded against departmentally on a reasonable apprehension of the commission of misconduct and that he did not perform any duty during the period he remained out of service. Since the allegation was not proved, the mere fact that he was departmentally proceeded is not sufficient to disallow back benefits. No doubt, the appellant did not perform duty during the period he was out of service, but it was not due to any act committed by him, but on account of the illegal order of his termination from service.
4. As a result, I accept the appeal and dismissing the cross-objection, allow full back benefits to the appellant.