DECISION ' These are 72 appeals by the workers of United Bank Limited, that while re-instating them in service the Labour Court did not grant them the back benefits.
2. In the grievance petition a formal claim was not made by the workers for back benefits but only they had made a statement in their Affidavits that they were jobless. On the other hand the Bank had not cross-examined the workers on the point of being jobless. The learned Labour Court held that since the workers are themselves to be blamed for not obtaining written orders of appointment and they did not agitate for a number of years to receive their orders, the blame lies on them also and they are not therefore entitted to any back benefits.
3. The grant of back benefits is not mandatory requirement of the order of re-instatement. It is to be considered separately and it is discretion of Court A to judge what back benefits if any may or may not be granted. In these cases the responsibility lay with the workers to obtain their orders of appointment in writing and they were indifferent to make efforts to obtain such orders.
4. Under the circumstances no back benefits were ordered by the lower Court. I accordingly find no reason for interference. The appeals are dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.