Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑78 of 1984, decided on 6th August, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition for reason that petitioner did not prove himself to be a workman‑‑No objection raised in written statement that petitioner was not a workman hence no evidence led on such point‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits.

Malik Ghulam Rasool for Appellant.

Ch. Ismatullah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24th July, 1984.

The decision, dated 13‑2‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a store‑keeper. He resigned on 16‑6‑1981 and applied for the refund of security of Rs. 1,000 and payment of gratuity. It was refused. He made an application to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, but it was returned for lack of jurisdiction. He then applied to the learned lower Court under section 25‑A. The petition has been dismissed for the reason that the appellant did not prove himself as a workman.

3. A perusal of the written statement shows that no objection was raised that the appellant was not a workman. If such an objection had been raised, the appellant may have led evidence about his duties and tried to prove that he was a workman.

4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision on merits.

A.E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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