Find a Lawyer

---‑ S. 38 (7)‑Transfer application‑Ground that Labour Court passed two orders adverse to applicant‑Held : Not sufficient for transfer of case.

By this application made under subsection (7) of section 38, I.R.O., the applicant who has preferred a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., which is pending for adjudication before the learned 1st Labour Court, seeks transfer of the same to some other Court.

2. The ground on which the transfer has been sought is that the learned Court has passed two orders adverse to the applicant. One of these orders is dated 12th April, 1980, and is in respect of an attempt on the part of the applicant to file affidavits of his witnesses after his side was closed. The order in question reads as follows :‑

The evidence was closed on 31st March, 1980. These affidavits cannot now be taken in evidence. File in Misc. part".

3. The second order by which the applicant feels aggrieved is dated 20th April, 1980. By this order, the learned Labour Court rejected the application of the applicant to call certain persons as Court witnesses. The order reads as follows:-

Mr. Nasir did not disclose that record of posting is kept by Asstt. Director, etc. In fact he said that posting was done orally. It appears that no record was kept. Besides even if Mr. Nasir had made such disclosures still no case is made out to call these six witnesses (as Court witnesses). Evidence cannot be fished out like this. Rejected.

4. It cannot be said that the above two orders are illegal or unreasonable. Even if they suffer from some infirmity, the proper course for the applicant was to challenge them by way of a revision application. A transfer application based on these two orders is wholly, misconceived.

5. I would accordingly reject the transfer application as being based on no reasonable ground of apprehension.

A. It Application 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.