DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of the Third Sindh Labour Court, at Karachi passed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, reinstating the appellant without awarding back benefits. The only point raised in this appeal is whether withholding back benefits by the Labour Court was justified. The Labour Court found that it was not mentioned in the grievance application that the worker was unemployed after he was removed from service and as such he was not entitled to back benefits.
2. Mr. Muhammad Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the appellant has pointed out that the proceedings were ex parte and in the affidavit of ex parte proof the worker had mentioned clearly, in para. 8 of his affidavit, that he was still unemployed and sitting idle and he was not getting any job anywhere.
No evidence was offered in rebuttal by the other side being ex parte.
3. Mr. S.S. Jehangir, learned Advocate for the respondents, M/s. Halima Enterprises, has stated that the old business establishment was dissolved soon after the removal of the appellant and he should not, therefore, be penalised for making full payment from his own resources.
4. In the case of National Bank of Pakistan, Hyderabad v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others reported in 1993 PLC 57 it was held by the Karachi High Court that once Labour Court or Appellate Tribunal had come to conclusion that termination of service of an employee was unlawful, such employee, as a matter of course, should be granted back benefits unless employer was able to establish by cogent evidence that concerned employee had been gainfully employed elsewhere. In this case although there is evidence that the appellant was sitting idle there is not even a mention of the fact that he was gainfully employed anywhere else.
5. Under the circumstances the appellant, alongwith his reinstatement, is allowed all the back benefits to which he is entitled and the appeal is allowed to that extent.