1. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that services: of the petitioner were terminated by respondents vide order dated 15.2.1983. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed review 'petition before the respondents which was also , dismissed vide order dated 5.3.1983. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed petition on 4.4.1984 before Punjab Labour Court No. 7 Gujranwala at Gujrat which was returned to the petitioner vide order dated 30.7.1986. Thereafter the petitioner filed declaratory suit against respondents in Court of S.C.J. Gujrat The plaint was returned to the petitioner for presentation to the .Proper forum vide order dated 12.9.1988. The petitioner filed grievance petition before Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala at Gujrat on 21.9.1988 alongwith application for condonation of delay. The respondents filed written statement. The grievance petition was accepted by Punjab Labour Court vide order dated 30.9.1989. The respondents were.
2. Directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. with all back benefits The respondents being aggrieved, filed appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which was partly accepted vide judgment dated 9.12.1987 and modified the judgment dated 9.12.'1989 reducing the back benefits 50 percent.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that refusal of Punjab Labour Appellate, .Tribunal qua, all back benefits to petitioner is arbitrary ; that once the impugned order was set aside by Punjab Labour Court and upheld by the Punjab Appellate Tribunal then the Punjab Appellate Tribunal was erred in law to reduce the back benefits which is not in accordance with law laid down by the superior, Courts. In support of .His contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- Qadeer Ahmed's case (PLD 1990 SC 787) = (1999 SCMR 1573).
3. It is pertinent to mention here that no judgment is on the aforesaid page. (1999 SCMR 1573).
4. Pakistan through General Manager's case (PLD 1970 SC 41 5).
3. The respondents' counsel submits that petitioner got the retirement voluntarily during the pendency of this writ petition and received the benefits on 13.9.2000 without reserving the tight to claim 50% back benefits on the basis of this writ petition which is pending adjudication, . Therefore, writ petition has become infructuous on account of the subsequent events and conduct of petitioner;, that services of petitioner were terminated on the allegations of corruption. The dismissal order was set aside by the Tribunal below on technical ground, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get back benefits. In support of his contention he relied upon Muhammad Bashir's case (1991 .SCMR 2087). He also relied upon the judgment cited by petitioner's counsel and submits that judgment cited by petitioner's counsel in fact supports the case of respondent; that petitioner approached the Punjab Labour Court and .Grievance petition was returned to the petitioner as the principle laid down by this Court- in 1985 P.L.C. 1053 Vice President N.B.P. Vs. Punjab. Appellate Tribunal); thereafter the petitioner filed suit for declaration in which plaint was returned to the petitioner on the basis of law laid down in Ifiikhar Ahmed's case (PLD 1988 SC 53) that Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was justified to reduce 50% back benefits on the well-known principle that nobody should be penalized by the act of Court. In this behalf he relied upon Sh. Muhammad Shafique's case (PLD 1992 Lhr. 60) and Namdar Khan's case (1993 .SCMR 434).; that substantial justice has been done, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given My anxious Consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of orders passed by Tribunal below to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- Order of Punjab Labour Court.
5. "The dismissal order is quite illegal even the inquiry conducted by Inquiry Officer is also not in accordance with Rules and procedure. I, therefore, accept the petition, set aside the order of dismissal dated 15.2.1983 and reinstate the petitioner in service with all back benefits."
6. Order of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal:- 4"So far as the back benefits are concerned, the respondents deposed before the learned Labour Court in his statement that on account of being dismissed from service, he could not got any job.
7. No evidence was produced by the appellant to show that in reality the respondent had been working for gain. However, the learned lower Court has wrongly allowed full backs benefits for the total period during which the respondent remained out of service. The decision of the case was delayed on account of the divergent decision on the point as to which forum was competent to give relief to the respondent. In these circumstance, neither the respondent can be deprived of benefits for the whole period nor the appellant can be burdened to pay full back benefits. In my opinion in the circumstances of the case if 50% back benefits are allowed it would meet the ends of justice."
8. The aforesaid part of the operative orders of Tribunal below which reveal that Punjab Labour Court .Did not discussed the evidence on record and granted the full back benefits to the petitioner whereas the Punjab 'Labour Appellate Tribunal reduced back benefits to 50% with reasons. It i& settled proposition of law that nobody should be penalized by the act of Court as principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- Muhammad Mansha and another's case (1999 SCM R 1782) and (PLD 1975 Lah. 7) (Mian Irshad A.I's case). The back benefits were reduced on the basis of the aforesaid grounds in reported case Anwar A.I Shah's case (NLR 1991 Tribunal Decisions 205) and the relevant observations is as follows:- - "The employee cannot burdon an employer without payment of his back benefits when he has been dragged his employee in wrong forum for such a long period. In my opinion, therefore, there is no case made out for holding back benefits to the appellants and the appellant with regard to back benefits is dismissed."
9. It is settled proposition of law that it is discretion of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal either to grant or refuse the -back benefits. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:-- Khalf Shah's case (1988 PLC 877) Habib-ur-Rehman's case (1983 PLC 1279) Muhammad Jafri's case (1986 PLC 1:166).
10. The impugned judgment of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reveals with back benefits was reduced after applying its independent mind with reasons meaning thereby discretion was exercised in accordance with law keeping in view the principle of equity, justice and fair play coupled with the facts that the petitioner did not mention a single word in his petition that he remained out of job after dismissal till filing the grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court.
11. It is also settled proposition of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of Tribunal below as the principle laid down in Mussadaq's case (PLD 1973 Lah.
12. 600) and (PLD 1964 SC 236).