Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2228 of 1983, decided on 5th December, 1983.

‑‑ Art. 9 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) Constitutional jurisdiction Production of additional documentary evidence Determination of question on basis of fresh evidence produced for first time‑Railway em ployee‑Term in nation of service due to abolition of posts (A.C.C. Supervisors)‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on grounds that petitioners (employees) not covered by definition of "Workers"‑Appellate Tribunal reversing decision of Labour Court after finding that petitioners were "workers" and that posts were abolished by Chairman who had not been delegated requisite powers by Railway Board‑Railway Board alleged to have sub sequently re‑armed its previous sanction for abolition of posts Railways invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court against decision of Appellate Tribunal with additional documents purport ing to show that decision for abolition of posts was of Railway Board and Appellate Tribunal erred in law holding that abolition order was incompetent‑Contention that additional documents not produced before Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal could not be considered in constitutional proceedings‑Contention over, ruled‑Held: (i) if documents were authentic there shall be no bar to their production inasmuch as consideration thereof would be necessary for determination of real controversy and (ii) it is also duty of Court to explore every possible avenue to upheld validity of an Order passed by public authority‑Determination of question depending upon basis of fresh documentary evidence‑High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, held, cannot determine such question and case, in circumstances, held, fit for remand High Court quashing impugned order and remanding case to Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh after opportunity of addi tional documentary evidence to parties.

S. Naeem Bakhari and Saleem Baig for Petitioner.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent 1.

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 Relation's 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 (hereinafter to be called Ordi nance) 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 as without jurisdiction. The petitioners were direct ed to re‑instate 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 with out jurisdiction. 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.

3. 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 dis posed of on a short ground. The impugned order is being sought to be quashed on the basis of Annexures H/t, 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 hold ing 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 Appellate Tribunal, therefore, these documents can not 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 deter mination 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) wherein it was observed:

"In a proceeding of this extraordinary nature where a superior Court calls for the records of judicial or qaasi‑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 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.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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