Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑555 of 1983, decided on 29th July, 1984.

--‑‑S. 36‑Ex parte proceedings‑Non‑production of written state ment‑Defence struck off and petition challenging promotion/ seniority accepted‑‑Court failed to serve notice on other respon dent/affected party nor passed order for proceeding ex parte against him. Held: Court's proceedings not satisfactory and according to law‑Production of ex parte evidence necessary as O. IX, r. 6 (a), C. P. C. not applicable to labour cases because pleadings are not verified on oath‑Case remanded for re-decision after allowing parties to produce evidence.

Qazi Masood Ahmed for Appellant.

Japed Awan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 22nd July, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 30th October, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9 Multan whereby striking off the defence of the appellant for non‑production of written statement, the petition of the respondent was accepted.

2. Four adjournments were given to the appellant for filing written statement and on the fifth date the defence was struck off. But the learn ed lower Court missed to consider that admittedly the respondent had not passed the trade test. His allegation was that he was not asked to pass the same and that his junior was made to pass the trade test and was promoted. No statement of the respondent was recorded, nor any seniority list was on the record. The fault may be of the appellant but what was the fault of Abdul Ghani, respondent No. 3 in the grievance petition. The file does not show if a notice was served upon him as no report of service is on the record, nor there is any order proceeding ex parte against him, nor on any, date his or, his counsel's presence is recorded. If the appellant happens to demote Abdul Ghani and promote the respondent, great miscarriage of justice will be caused to Abdul Ghani. He will be condemned unheard. The proceedings of the learned lower Court are not satisfactory and according to law. It was not cared to see before deciding the case that Abdul Ghani had not been served and ii' at all served had not been proceeded ex parte. If he had been proceeded ex parte, ex parte evidence was to be produced as Order 1X, rule 6 (a), C.P.C. does not apply to the labour cases, in as much as the pleadings are not verified on oath.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, on payment of Rs. 300 as costs to the respondent, the case i8 remanded for re-decision after effecting service upon Abdul Ghani, respon dent and after giving last opportunity to the appellant to file written statement and allowing the parties to produce evidence.

M. Y. H.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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