Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑572 of 1983, decided 12th March, 1984.

‑‑ S. 36‑Practice and procedure‑Cross‑examination of witnesses--Greatest legal engine ever invented for discovery of truth --Party relying on affidavit must produce deponent for cross -examination‑During proceedings before Labour Court due to objectionable attitude of representative of petitioner Manager of Establishment (respondent) not completely cross‑examined and case adjourned to next date reserved for remaining cross‑examina tion‑None appearing on next date‑‑Labour Court passing order without completion of cross‑examination‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, observing that situation resulted in miscarriage of justice hence setting aside order of Labour Court and remanding case to Labour Court with direction that to allow reasonable opportunity to respondent to pro duce its Manager (witness) for cross‑examination of other party.

Abdul Hameed v. Malik Karam Dad, P. C. S. Election Tribunal Rawalpindi and 2 others P L D 1966 (W. P.) Lah. 16 rel.

S. M. Kohistani for Appellant.

Suleman Habibullah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th February, 1984.

This appeal calls in question the impugned order, dated 15th August, 1983 passed by the learned Labour Court No. V at Karachi dismissing appellant's grievance application filed under section 25‑A, T, R. O., 1969, as not maintainable.

2. The appellant's case is that he was employed as an Assistant Fitter, a permanent workman in the respondent establishment since 2nd September, 1981. He was doing overtime but was not being paid for it. His demand annoyed the respondent. The General Manager of the respondent establishment called him on 12th June, 1982 and demanded his resignation. On his refusal he was dismissed from service by verbal order without serving him with a show cause notice and a charge‑sheet. He served a grievance notice on the respondent but with no success. He, therefore, filed an application under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969 in the learned Labour Court, which was dis missed as stated above. Aggrieved by the order he has filed this appeal.

3. The respondent's case is that the appellant was neither dismissed from service nor his services were terminated but he has deserted his duties himself. According to them, they are prepared to take him back in the job. They have further contended that he never worked on overtime and there N as no dispute in that respect. Their further contention is that in the circumstances the application filed by him under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969, is premature as well as non maintainable and was rightly dismissed.

4. I have perused the relevant evidence and the material on the record and have also heard Mr. S. M. Kohistani the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Suleman Habibullah the learned Advocate for the respondent. The appellant was cross examined by the learned Advocate for the respondent on his affidavit in evidence, whereas the respondents filed affidavit in evidence of Iqbal Ahmad Khan their Manager who was partly cross‑examined by the appellant's representative and thereafter his examination was reserved. What I find from the record that no legal evidence was recorded on behalf of the respondent on account of an objectionable and unreasonable attitude adopted by the learned representative for the appellant during the course of the Court proceedings. The record shows that on 13th March, 1983, after Iqba1 Ahmad Khan Manager of the respondent, was partly cross‑examined the learned Labour Court observed that the appellant's representative was putting irrelevant questions and was not allowing to proceed with the case and, therefore, the case was adjourned and the remaining cross examination was reserved. It appears that on the next date of hearing viz., 27th March, 1983, 1qba1 Ahmad Khan witness of the respondent as well as the respondent's Advocate were absent when the case was called on for hearing and, therefore, the respondent's cross‑examination and the side was closed. The respondent's Advo cates, Mr. Suleman Habibullah appeared while the order closing the side of the respondent was being passed and immediately moved an application requesting for the side to be reopened, as the respondent's witness was out of the country, in India, but in spite of his best efforts he could not succeed on account of the stiff attitude adopted by the appellant's representative who went on vehemently opposing such a move. The appellant's representative has contended that the Advocate of the respondent went on shouting to distrub him while he was cross‑examining the respondent's witness. All this material which is available on the record gives a clear impression that the attitude adopted by the representative for ' the appellant and the Advocate for the respondent was so objectionable and unreasonable during the case proceedings that the learned Labour Court had, in the first instance, to reserve the cross‑examination of the respon dent's witness and subsequently had to close the cross‑examination as well as the respondent's evidence. Cross‑examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for discovery of truth. It was held in the case of Abdul Hameed v. Malik Karam Dad, P. C. S. Election Tribunal Rawalpindi and 2 others (P L D 1966 (W. P.) Lah. 16), that the party relying on the affidavit must produce deponent in the witness‑box and if the deponent fails to submit to the cross‑examination the affidavit shall lose all its force as probative piece of evidence in the case and cannot be acted upon. It would, thus be clear that no legal evidence on behalf of the respondent has come on the record, obviously for an objectionable attitude adopted by the representative of the appellant as observed by the learned Labour Court. In the circumstances, I find that the situation has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It would, therefore, be appropriate, without considering the merits of the case, to remand the case to the learned Labour Court with a direction to allow a reasonable opportunity to the respondent to produce Iqbal Ahmed Khan the Manager of the respondent establishment for cross‑exami nation of the other party. Both the parties shall also be allowed a reasonable opportunity to produce additional evidence if they so want. The ease shall then be disposed of according to law.

5. The result is that the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Labour Court with the directions above‑mentioned for a fresh decision as far as possible within a period of three months. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

A. E.

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.