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.
Appeal No. ID‑112 of 1980, decided on 27th September, 1982.
‑‑‑ S. 10‑Registration of Trade Union, cancellation of‑Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court ordering cancellation of registration of appellant on ground that plastic not industry and employees work ing in it, not entitled to form Union‑Lower Court not inviting any evidence on point‑No statement of parties recorded that they not wanting to produce any evidence‑Leading of evidence or not on particular point, right of parties and whether plastic, industry or not, mixed question of law and fact‑Case remanded for re‑decision after affording proper opportunities to parties to produce evidence.
Zia Mahmood Mirza and Muhammad Nawaz for Appellant.
Muhammad Bilal for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 27th September, 1982.
In this appeal the decision dated 22nd January, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi challenged, whereby a direction was given to the respondent to cancel the registration of the appellant Union. The ground on which the cancellation of registration was ordered is that PLASTIC is not an industry, therefore, the employees working in it were not entitled to form any Union. The learned lower Court did not invite evidence on the point whether PLASTIC was an industry or not. Only arguments were heard. No statements of the parties were recorded to the effect that they did not want to produce any evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that oral and documentary evidence was to be produced to show that PLASTIC was an industry and since no opportunity was given, the appellant has been prejudiced. It is the right of parties to decide whether on a particular point they want. to lead evidence or not. Whether PLASTIC is an indust3l is 'a mixed question of fact and law and if the appellant wishes to produce evidence, it cannot be said that he is intentionally prolonging the case. If the learned lower Court had given an opportunity, the case would not have been delayed.
2. 1, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence the case be re-decided in the light of the material to be brought on the record by the parties.
K. M. A. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer