Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑227 of 1976, heard on 28th October 1976.

----S. 25‑A‑Handwriting Expert, reference to‑Employer appellant producing resignation and payment receipts purporting to have been signed by worker respondent but respondent denying to have executed such documents‑Appellant making request for sending document to Handwriting Expert to prove that such documents did bear workers signatures but no order pawed by lower Tribunal‑Labour Court, held, failed in its duty and documents were not only to be sent to Handwriting Expert in circumstances but Court could also compare various signatures‑Appellant's grievance, held, genuine and Labour Court's order re‑instating respondent set aside‑Case remanded for sending questioned documents to Handwriting Expert at appellant's cost and to decide case afresh.

Syed Zamirul Hasan for Appellant.

Choudhry Maarif for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 28th October 1976.

This is an appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the order of Labour Court ordering re‑instatement on an application made under section 25‑A of the I. R. O.

2. The respondent was working in the appellant's silk factory. He made an application to the Labour Court under section 25‑A on the allegation that he was removed from service on 6th November 1975 without any valid reason and without any order in writing. He, therefore, prayed for re‑instatement with all the benefits.

3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent had remained absent from duty for several days and notices were issued to him to resume his duty but he failed. However on 29th December, 1975 he appeared and tendered his resignation in writing. It was also pleaded that ire received all his dues.

4. Evidence was recorded. The appellant attempted to produce the various documents, i e. the resignation and payment receipts during the cross examination, but the respondent denied the signatures and, therefore, the documents were not admitted. An application was also made by the appellant to send the documents to the handwriting expert for the comparison of the signatures but no order was passed thereon. In the Labour Court an objection was taken on behalf of the appellant that the factory did not employ twenty or more persons and, therefore, the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance was not applicable. This plea was rejected.

5. I have considered the evidence on record and I fully agree with the view taken by the Labour Court that at least twenty Workers were employed and, therefore, the Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable. The appellant failed to produce any reliable evidence to rebut this evidence.

6. So far the resignation and the payment receipts tire concerned, the appellant had produced the documents and a request was also made) for sending the documents to the handwriting expert but no order was passed. In my view the Labour Court failed in its duty. Not only that the documents were to be sent to the handwriting expert but the Labour Court could also compare the various signatures and this was not done. Consequently, the grievance of the appellant is genuine and the impugned order cannot be supported.

7. In result I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and remand the case fur sending the documents to the handwriting expert at the cost of the appellant. The Presiding officer shall also compare the signatures to decide the question whether throw documents bear the signature of the respondent or not and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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