Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA-147 of 1980, decided on 13th July, 1982.

---S. 25-A,--Grievance petition against termination from service dismissed on ground that employee was not , a workman--Trial Court failed to discuss evidence produced by parties but relied upon his own decision of same day in another case without mentioning that evidence produced was same as in other case and without consolidating two cases--Held: Evidence produced in one case cannot be used in other case--Tribunal set aside order and remanded case for deciding .afresh in light of evidence led by parties.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 17-2-1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed on the ground that he was not a workman.

2. The appellant was a dryer/mills incharge and his services were terminated on 5-8-1979. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondent also, in which it has been urged that the finding of the lower Court that the appellant is covered by the definition of workman given in the I.R.O. is also incorrect and unsustainable. This is factually incorrect that the Labour Court has held that the appellant is covered by the definition of workman given in I.R.O. The finding is that he is not covered by the definition of workman given in Standing Orders Ordinance. The learned trial Judge while deciding that the appellant is not a workman has not discussed the evidence produced by the parties and has relied upon its own decision delivered in Mustansar Shaukat Khilji v. Doaba Rice Mills decided on the same date on which the present case was decided i.e. 17-2-1980. He has not said that the evidence produced in the case of Mustansar Shaukat Khilji on the point of workman is the same as the one produced in this case. The learned trial Judge should have independently decided this case as it had not been consolidated with the said case. If the evidence produced in the two cases is different, the evidence produced in the other case cannot be used in this case. The adverse party i.e. the respondent had to meet the evidence produced in this case and not in any other case.

3. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision, send back the case with the direction that on the point of workman fresh decision be given in the light of evidence led by the parties on the point. If the appellant is declared to be a workman, the case shall be decided on merits.

M.I.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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