Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑245 of 1978/Pb., decided on 24th August, 1978.

-----S. 25‑A‑‑Termination of services‑Appellant , appointed in place of J and not in place of M‑Appellant, held, could not be discharged on resumption of duty by M.

‑‑‑ S. 107 (1) (d)‑Additional evidence‑No additional evidence, held, can be allowed in appeal to fill up lacuna in case‑Case not one where Court would require production of additional evidence in order to pronounce judgment, no additional evidence in circumstances, held, could be produced.

Muhammad Sadiq Warraich for Appellant.

Mian Sham sul Haq for Respondent No. 1.

Shafiq Ahmad Malik for Respondent No. 2.

This is an appeal against the decision dated 14‑2‑1978 of. Punjab. Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi.

2. Mahmood Akhtar, appellant, was appointed as a Conductor on 10‑11‑1976, vide order Exh. R‑1 in place of a conductor Javed Iqbal, who was long absent. His services were terminated, vide termination letter Exh. A‑1 dated 27‑12‑1976. It reads as under :‑ ..

"Consequent upon resumption of duty by regular conductor Muhammad Ramzan, T. L. No. 182 on 22‑12‑76 Badli Conductor Mahmood Akhtar, TL No. 182‑A (son of Dost Muhammad) who was engaged against the absence vacancy, is hereby relieved of his duties with immediate effect.

He will be paid his dues on production of No Demand Certificate'."

This letter was signed by the District Manager. Aggrieved by the order of termination the appellant filed a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on 18‑1‑1977 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same, vide decision in appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision Mahmood Akhtar, appellant, has preferred this appeal.

4. From the facts narrated above it is clear that the appellant was appointed in place of one Javed Iqbal and not in place of Muhammad Ramzan. Therefore, his services could not have been terminated on the resumption of duty by Muhammad Ramzan.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the appellant, after the return of Javed Iqbal, was re‑appointed in. place of Muhammad Ramzan and when he resumed duty, the services of the appellant were terminated. There is no evidence on the record to prove this contention. It is well‑established that in an appeal no additional evidence can be allowed to fill up lacunas in the case. This is also not a case where the Court would require the production of that evidence in order to pronounce the judgment The Court can pronounce the judgment without those documents.

6. In view of the above, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. I, accordingly, accepted the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and direct that the appellant be re‑instated with back benefits in accordance with my judgment dated 12‑7‑1978 in the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Mr. Naeem‑ud‑Din Qureshi, District Manager, Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, Lahore and 2 others.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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