Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. QSA‑63 of 1984, decided on 26th February, 1984.

‑‑Residential quarter‑Workman in occupation of quarter‑No allotment order made‑Neither any settlement nor rule providing allotment of quarter to every employee ‑ Grievance petition challeng ing action of employer for ejectment, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court because there was no guaranteed right in unlawful occupation‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

M. A. Hamid Awan for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 25th February, 1984.

The decision dated 20th February, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challen ed in this appeal.

2. The facts are that the appellant is an employee of the respondent and is living in a portion of a quarter. The case of the appellant is that he was allotted the disputed portion of the quarter and now he is being ejected illegally. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that the quarter was allotted to Kala Khan, father‑in‑law of the appellant and he had accommodated the appellant. Kala Khan has been admittedly dismissed and since the appellant not being, allottee has no right, is not entitled to remain in possession. The appellant led oral evidence to the effect that there was not practice of allotting quarters by written order when the appellant had come in occupation and that in the same locality other helpers and fitters are also occupying quarters. This is noteworthy that the witnesses did not state that the appellant was allotted the quarter orally or by any written order. The evidence of mere possession is of no avail to the appellant. So far as posses sion is concerned, this is an admitted fact that the appellant is in occupa tion. P. W. 2 is, as admitted by him, related to the appellant. The appel lant admitted in cross‑examination that there was no rule or settlement that every employee should be allotted residential accommodation. None of the witnesses examined by the appellant deposed that the quarter in dispute was ever allotted to him, the solitary statement of the appellant in this respect stands controverted, by the evidence of R. W. 1. There being no allotment oral or in writing, the occupation of the appellant is unlawful and' that he had no guaranteed right to apply under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. His petition thus was rightly dismissed.

3. As a result, there is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed in limine.

A. E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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