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.
1983 P L C 646
[Labour Appellate Tribunal
Present : Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
UMARHAYAT
versus
WAPDA AND ANOTHER
Appeal No. MI‑394 of 1978/Pb., heard on
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 37‑Grievance petition against termination of service on being surplus‑Contention that juniors retained in serving not rebutted ‑Unreubutted statement of petitioner, held, sufficient to award re‑instatement.
Abdul Karim Saggu for Appellant.
Muhammad Rafrq Shahid for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 31st January, 1982.
The respondent was Beldar appointed in January, 1972. His services were terminated on the ground of being surplus. He after serving grievance notice, brought petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his re‑instatement, from the dismissal of which the present appeal arises. The case of the appellant is that his Juniors namely Mithu, Ghaffar, Muhammad Ramzan and Gulsher were regularised. He did not produce any documentary evidence and contended himself with his own statement. The respondent who is the custodian of relevent record has not cared to produce documentary evidence to rebut the oral statement of the appellant that his juniors have been regularised. The respondent could produce the attendance and pay registers to prove that no one junior to the appellant was retained or regularised in service, The lower court wrongly says that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that any of the juniors was retained in service. The unrebutted statement A of the appellant in this respect is sufficient to show that Gulsher who according to the seniority list . Exh P‑2, was junior to him was retained in service.
2. The finding of the learned lower court that WAPDA should have been sued is also incorrect. In civil cases no doubt only WAPDA can sue and be sued but in labour cases the matter in quite different. Here the employer whoever be may be is to be sued. The authority who terminated the services of the appellant could only be sued. It has not been shown that the Executive Engineer in the employer of the appellant or that some different officer terminated his services.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of termination, and direct the re‑instatement of the appellant in service with back benefits
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer