' The decision dated 12-4-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore has been challenged to the extent it allowed back benefits to the respondent.
2. The respondent asserted that he has remained jobless. In cross-examination, however, he stated that he got some work for sometime and at sometime he remained without any work. No further question was put to him for how long he got work and what he earned. After the respondent had asserted on oath that he has remained jobless, the onus shifted upon the appellant to get divulged from the respondent that he throughout the period of his dismissal, remained employed or to disclose what he had actually earned. By producing evidence also it could be proved what the respondent had actually earned. It was not difficult for the appellant to do so. When the respondent was in the witness-box, he could be inquired where he had been working and then inquiry could have been made from his such employer about the period of employment and what actually the respondent had earned. Simply getting an answer from the respondent that sometime he got some work, the appellant did not make out a case of non-payment of back benefits. The cross- examination of the respondent shows that he casually got some work which is to be ignored. Thus, the respondent was rightly allowed back benefits by the learned lower Court.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.