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.
TC.
Appeal No. SUK‑658 of 1980, heard on 15th November, 1980.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑‑‑‑. S. 1 (3)‑Applicability of Ordinance‑Whether respondent was a commercial or industrial establishment‑No evidence on point adduced‑Decision of Labour Court in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision after opportunity of evidence to both parties‑Industrial Relations Ordi nance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.
Farkhand Ali for Appellant.
M. I. Malik for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 15th November, 1980. .
The sole issue which falls to be considered in this appeal against the decision of the learned VI1th Labour Covert, given on 26th August, 1980, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O., is whether the respondent establishment is a commercial or industrial establishment for the purposes of the Standing Orders and whether the Standing Orders are applicable to it. The learned Labour Court has taken the view that the onus of establishing these facts was upon the appellant and since he has failed to do so, therefore, it had dismissed the appellant's grievance petition, solely on this point. It may, however, be pointed out that the respondent establishment, in its reply state ment, has not said a word as to the number of its employees during the relevant period nor had it even alleged that the Standing Orders are not applicable to it. All that is stated in the reply statement is that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. There is also a vague reference in the reply statement to the West Pakistan Shops and Estab lishments Ordinance, 1969, but it is not clear how the said Ordinance would be applicable to an industrial and manufacturing concern. It was frankly conceded by the learned counsel of both the sides that there is practically no evidence either in regard to the number of employees in the respondent establishment or with respect to the application of the Standing Orders to it. This is not surprising as no specific issue in regard on these matters was framed by the learned Labour Court. In the circumstances, the grievance of the appellant appears to have some foundation that he was not afforded an opportunity of leading evidence on the point on which his grievance petition has been dismissed. I would accordingly set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and would direct that an opportunity should be given to both sides to lead evidence to these twin points and thereafter a fresh decision should be recorded.
2. A perusal of the reply statement indicates that a number of other objections to the maintainability of the grievance petition were raised by the respondent establishment. If the learned Labour Court takes the view that the Standing Orders are applicable to the respondent establishment, it should record a finding with regard to the other objec tions raised by the respondent establishment as to the maintainability of the appellant's grievance petition and also whether he is entitled to any relief.
Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer