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.
Writ Petition No. 2228 of 1983, heard on 5th December, 1983.
‑‑ Art. 9‑Writ jurisdiction‑Additional evidence‑Documents not produced before Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal whose orders impugned in writ petition before High Court Such documents if authentic and consideration thereof necessary for determination of real controversy, production thereof, held, not barred‑High Court, however, held cannot determine con troversy in exercise of writ jurisdiction on basis of fresh evidence produced for first time‑impugned order, in circumstances, quashed and case remanded to Labour Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh after opportunity of fresh evidence to parties.
Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1964 S C 260 rel.
S. Naeem Bokhari and Saleem Baig for Petitioners.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th December, 1983.
This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution order, 1981, calls in question the order, dated 15th May, 1983 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby the order, dated 30th January, 1982 of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2 dismissing the petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was set aside.
2. Facts relevant for disposal ‑ of this petition are that the posts of A. C. C. Supervisors were purported to be abolished by the Railway Board in its meeting held on 10th August, 1980. In consequence, respondents Nos. 1 to 26 were removed from the service of the Railways. They challenged this order by means of an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (herein after to be called Ordinance') before the Labour Court, which was dismissed on 30th January, 1982, on the ground that the respondents were not workers' within the purview of section 2 (xxviii) of the Ordinance. On appeal, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, vide order, dated 15th May, 1983 set aside the decision of the Labour Court and accepted the appeal inter alia with the observation that the respondents were covered by the definition of 'worker' and consequently their order of termination of service was declared a without jurisdiction. The petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondents in service with back benefits. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the Railway Board was competent to abolish any post, but in the instant case, no power was delegated to the Vice‑Chairman of the Railway Board for the abolition of a permanent or temporary post and, therefore, the abolition of the posts of A. C. C. Supervisors in pursuance, of the order of the Vice‑Chairman was without jurisdic tion. Subsequent to the impugned decision of the Tribunal, the Railway Board in its meeting held on 25th May, 1983 allegedly re affirmed its previous sanction for the abolition of the posts of A. C. C. Supervisors.
A number of points have been raised in this petition. It is, however, not necessary to deal with those points as the petition can be disposed of on a short ground. The impugned order is being sought to be quashed on the basis of Annexures H/1', 'H/2' and 'J' which purported to show that the decision regarding the abolition of the posts of A. C. C. Supervisors was of the Railway Board, therefore, the Labour Court, as well as, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal have erred in law in holding to the contrary. Mr. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has taken a specific objection in para. 9 (vi) of the written statement that the documents now being produced before this Court were ‑never produced either before the Labour Court. or the Punjab Labour Appel late Tribunal, therefore, these documents cannot be considered in these proceedings. The objection is overruled. If the said documents are authentic, there shall be no bar to its production, inasmuch as, the consideration of these documents is necessary for determination of the real controversy involved in this case. It is also duty of the Court to explore every possible avenue to uphold the validity of an order passed by a public authority.
4. Be that as it may, this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, cannot determine this question upon the basis of fresh evidence produced for the first time. It is, therefore, a fit case for remand in the light of the dictum laid down in Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1964 S C 260) where in it was observed :‑
"In a proceeding of this extraordinary nature where a superior Court calls for the records of judicial or quasi‑judicial authorities or Tribunals, which are not subject to its appellate jurisdiction, the superior Court no doubt has the full power to do justice but does not as a rule, even in a case where it' does interfere, substitute its own decision of the inferior authority or Tribunal. Where it is felt that questions have been left undecided by such Tribunal or authority or a question has to be decided after taking of fresh evidence, it is more appropriate to return the case to the authority or Tribunal concerned for a decision in accordance with law, after quashing the order complained against."
5. For the reasons above, I quash the impugned order dated 15th May, 1983‑of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and remand the case to respondent No. 27 for decision afresh in accordance with law. The parties shall be at liberty to produce additional documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 27th December, 1983 for further proceedings. To this extent the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.
A. E. Petition accepted. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer