Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-577 78, decided on 14th June, 1982.

----S.2 (ix) & (xiv)----Question whether Government Medical Stores Depot was industrial concern or not--Functions of establishment determining its status a question of fact--Question involved not legal but a mixed question of fact and law which cannot be decided without evidence--No evidence on record available to show whether Medical Stores Depot was industrial concern or not--Onus to prove--If evidence is in possession of adverse party it could be summoned through Court--Adverse party not bound to produce evidence of their own accord for other party.

K. G. Old v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court P L D 1976 Lah. 1097 ref.

Muhammad Younas Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Muhammad Yaqoob for Respondent No.3.

Date of hearing: 12th May,.1982.

The appellant Union raised an industrial dispute, in which conciliation proceedings failed, therefore, a petition under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was brought in Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore. The industrial dispute was opposed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 raising preliminary objection to the effect that the Government Medical Stores Depot was not an industry, therefore, labour laws were not applicable and the industrial dispute could not be raised. On 11-2-1978 the counsel for the parties made a joint statement to the effect that they did not want to produce evidence on the prelimi nary objections and would only argue tile matter. The learned trial Judge after hearing arguments held that the Government Medical Stores Depot was not an industry relying upon K.G. Old v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court P L D 1976 Lah. 1097. What were the functions of the Government Medical Stores Depot was a question of fact and, therefore, the question involved was not purely legal but a mixed question of law and fact which could not be decided without any evidence. A Since there is no evidence on the record it is difficult to say that the depot comes within the definition of industry or not. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that documentry evidence was with the respondents and it was their duty to bring it on the record. I do not find any force in this argument. The onus was upon the appellant to prove that the stores depot was an industry. If the evidence was in the possession of the respondents it could be summoned through the lower court and it was not the duty of the respondents to produce the evidence of their own accord for the appellant. In the absence of evidence, the learned lower court was justified in holding that the depot was only supplying medicines to the Government Hospitals and was not an industry. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

M. I.

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.