Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- --S.25-A--Re-instatement--Back benefits--Workman claiming back benefits--Bound to show that he did not earn anything during intervening period--Workman a Law Graduate--Refusing to answer question whether he had started practice after termination--Petitioner (workman), in circumstances, held, bound to answer such question. Muhammad Hussan for Appellants. Ch. Abdul Hamid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th July, 1984. JUDGMENT The appeal titled above challenges the decision, dated 23-1-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore to the extent it disallowed back benefits to the appellant. The ground given is that the appellant refused to answer the question whether he had started practice after his termination from service on the ground that the question was irrelevant. 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant rightly said that the question was irrelevant as the respondent had not pleaded that the appellant had started practice, nor set off was claimed in the written statement. The argument is not tenable and the authority cited by the learned counsel is not helpful. This is true that in ordinary civil cases the defendant has to off under C.P.C. but labour cases are different in nature. In ordinary case the defendant knows what is due to him from the plaintiff but in labour cases the employer has no source to know if his out of service employee had joined service or occupation with some other employer. Since the appellant claims…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492