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. FD/510/Pb., of 1981, decided on 25th January, 1983.
Ss. 16, 53 & 37‑Unfair labour practice on part of workman Conviction by Labour Court‑Evidence of prosecution witnesses not discussed and no reasons given by Labour Court how alleged offence stood proved‑Conviction order, in circumstances, set aside on appeal by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for redecision.
Muhammad 1kram for Appellant.
Syed Fazal Hussain Shah for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 15th November, 1982.
This appeal arises from the order dated 10th August, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisal abad, Camp at Sargodha, whereby the complaint brought by Ch. Umar Hayat under section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted and the appellants were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court under section 53 of the Indus trial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants went to the office of the General Manager and demanded that the departmental enquiry started against Ghulam Ali, one of the appellants, be dropped and on his refusal shouted, indulged ',I abusing and when the Security Officer reached and intervened, he ;as beaten. The impugned order passed by the learned lower Court is cripple., so much so that it does not state even the facts of the :se. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not discussed ‑‑ :: no reasons given how the offence stood proved by their evident As the learned lower Court has not shown as to how the offence was proved by the prosecution evidence, I am not in a position to say whether the learned lower Court has scrutinised the prosecution evidence before accepting it.
3. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the conviction, remand the case for redecision in the light of the observation made above. Since the appellants have already undergone the punishment of simple imprisonment, it is unnecessary to set aside the same.
A. E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer