Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑88 of 1976, decided on 27th October 1976

----S.25-A‑ read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 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 employer's witness with loose paper as well as for consideration of plea relating to application of proviso to S. 1(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance.

Abdul Hal v. Messrs S. N. M. Industries, Karachi and another 1976 P L C

723 ref.

Masood Mirza for Appellant.

S. Safder Hussain for Respondent,

Date of hearing: 27th October 1976.

This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement 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 less than 20 workmen and, therefore, Standing Orders Ordinance employed 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 laced 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 1note 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 vas produced in the evidence. It has been asserted on behalf of the appellant that this sleet of paper was mysteriously included in the register subsequently. It is net necessary for me to go into this allega tion in view of the fact that this sheet was never properly brought on record and the witness for the appellant was never questioned about the sheet and, therefore, the learned Presiding Officer was not justified to rely upon it.

6. It was next urged that Standing Order ordinance was no: 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 tai v. Messrs S. N. M. Industries, Karachi and another (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 the 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 proviso to section 1 (3) of Standing of the plea relating to the application.

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.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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