Find a Lawyer

Appeals No. 802-805 of 1974, decided on 16th January 1975.

Ss. 25-A & 36-D-Disposal of application by Junior Labour Court under S. 25.A-Parties must be given chance to produce evidence Document produced not considered-Order of Junior Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside and matter remanded for fresh trial with proper opportunity of production of evidence.

Nasir Ahmed Qureshi for Appellant.

Mian Abdul Latif for Respondent.

The same questions of fact and law are involved in Appeals Nos. 801, 803, 804 and 805 of the 1974 therefore they are disposed of by this judgment together.

In all the four cases the employer is the same, namely, Baqar and Co. Chemical Industries Sargodha. The appellants are Ahmed Khan, Mohammad Sadiq, Manzoor son of Dost Mohammad and Manzoor Shah. They filed peti tions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, claiming that they were the employees of Baqar and Company and they were removed from service without any justification. In each petition the allegation was that they bad formed a Union and so the employer removed them from service on account of their Union activities. The reply of the employer in the case of Muhammad Sadiq was that he worked for 6 days only, that he was a daily rated worker and as such he was a temporary worker, removable at the discretion of the employer. In the other three cases it was pleaded by the employer that Lone of them was ever employed in his factory. One more ground was raised by the employer. It was that the number of workers was less than 20 and so the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stand ing Orders) Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable.

The points for determination in all these cases were;-

(1) Whether 20 or more workers were employed by the respondent on any day during the preceding 12 months and as such the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was applicable.

(2) Whether the petitioner was a permanent worker of the respondent.

The learned lower Court recorded the statement of Mr. Mahmood Ahmed, Social Security Officer, Sargodha in one case. It was recorded in two other cases. In the fourth case no evidence was recorded. He found that three of the petitioners were never employed and in the fourth case, the petitioner was a temporary employee. In this view of the matter, he dismissed all the four petitions. Hence they have come up in appeal.

The manner in which these petitions have been disposed is not proper. The parties must have been given a chance to produce their evidence. A document Exh. P. A. was proved to be correct copy of the, application, filed by the workers, to the Social Security Office. The case of the petitioners was that they formed a Union and so they approached the offices of Social Security Labour and Registrar Trade Unions so that attendance cards or Social Security Cards should be issued in their favour. It was at this juncture that they were removed from service. The document Exh. P A shows the names of three petitioners. This document has not been considered at all by the lower Court. I am of the view that proper chance of producing evidence has not been given to the patties and as such the Court is unable to give any finding on the points in dispute in these cases.

For the above reasons all the appeals are accepted and the orders of the lower Courts are set aside. All the four cases are remanded to the trial Court for fresh trial with the direction that all the four cases may be consoli dated. Proper opportunity may be given to both the parties to produce evidence and thereafter the cases shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 31st January 1975.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.