Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. RI‑234 and 235 of 1984/Pb., decided on 13^th August, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Order of Labour Court based upon no evidence‑‑Not sustainable‑‑Appellate Tribunal setting aside such order and remanding case to Labour Court for re‑decision after affording opportunity of producing evidence to parties.

‑‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Appeal by Railway Administration‑‑Relevant files required for preparing appeal misplaced and delay occurring in tracing out same‑‑Ground, held, cogent and delay, in circumstances, condoned.

Agha Taj Muhammad for Appellant.

Syed Fazal Hussain for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th August, 1984.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decisions, dated 5‑3‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, accepting the grievance petitions of the respondents.

2. The respondents were ticket collectors grade‑I1. They were promoted as S.T.Es. They were not allowed yearly increments as ticket collectors grade‑1I on the ground that they had not been confirmed on the said post, They had previously brought petition under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act for the deducted wages and succeeded. The appellant paid the deducted wages but did not allow increment for the future. The respondents instead of repeatedly bringing petitions under section 15, this time brought petitions under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which were allowed on the basis of the previous decisions

3. There is no evidence worth the name to enable the learned lower Court and this Tribunal to decide as to what is the rate of increment and how the respondents are entitled to it. The copies of some of the previous order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act are on the file but they too make reference to earlier decisions of the same authority. No copy of the judgment of the authority in which the points have been decided on the basis of some evidence has been produced. The impugned orders, therefore, are not sustainable. The appeals are time‑barred. The ground for condonation as given in the personal affidavit of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Railway's files from where the appeals were to be prepared, were by mistake taken away by Muhammad Asghar Railway Clerk alongwith other files and with great difficulties after seven days the learned counsel could trace them with the help of that clerk from the Head quarters Office, Lahore. The affidavit has not been controverted by any counter‑affidavit so I have no ground to disbelieve it. The ground given is cogent. So the delay is condoned.

4. As a result the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned lower Court, the cases are remanded for re-decision after affording opportunity to the parties to produce relevant evidence of their own choice.

A.E.

Appeals 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.