Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. KAR-87 of 1976, heard on 27th October 1976.
-- S. 25-A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(3), provision-Re-instatement -- Loose sheet of paper allegedly, inserted subsequently into register of workers produced by employer-Employer's witness not confronted with such loose paper-Such paper also never properly brought on record-Lower Tribunal, held, not justified in relying upon such document-Standing Orders Ordinance also not allegedly applicable to case in view of proviso to S. 1(3) of Ordinance Case remanded to lower Tribunal for confronting employers' witness with loose sheet paper as well as for consideration of plea relating to application of proviso to S. 1(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance.
Abdul Hai v. Messrs S. K. M. Industries, Karachi and another 1976 PLC723ref.
Masood Mirza for Appellant.
S. Safdar Hussain for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th October 1976.
This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement on the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The appellants are running a Rolling Mill. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant. According to the allegations made by the respondent he was verbally removed from service and was not permitted to enter the factory and work there. He, therefore, served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted and various objections were taken.
4. One of the objections which was taken was that the appellant employed less than 20 workmen and, therefore, Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable.
5. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant was employing more than 20 workmen and, therefore, the plea of the appellant was rejected. Reliance was mainly placed upon a sheet of paper pinned in the register showing that there were 25 workers. The register itself, which was produced in evidence. showed that not more than 16 workers were employed. I must say that the learned Presiding Officer could not rely upon the loose sheet of paper, as the witness for the appellant was not confronted with this sheet. Only the register was produced in the evidence. It has been asserted on behalf of the appellant A that this sheet of paper was mysteriously included in the register subsequently. :t is not necessary for me to go into this allegation in view of the fact that this sheet was never properly brought on record and the witness for the learned appellant was never questioned about the sheet and therefore, Presiding Officer was not justified to rely upon it.
6. It was next urged that Standing order Ordinance was not applicable in view of the proviso to section 1 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, reliance was placed upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Abdul Hai v. Messrs S. N. M. Industries, Karachi and another (1) (1) 1976 P L C 723, This aspect of the case was not considered by the Labour Court. This is an important point of law and needs consideration.
7. Several other pleas were taken before me but I do not propose to deal with them in view of my intention to remand the case to the Labour Court for confronting the appellant's witness with the loose sheet of paper relied upon by the learned Presiding Officer as well as for consideration of the plea relating to the application of proviso to section 1 (3) of Standing Orders Ordinance.
8. In result I allow the appeal and set aside the order and remand the case to the Labour Court for disposal in the light of this order. The parties shall be allowed to lead further evidence, if so desired by them.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer