Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. QSA‑442 of 1984, decided on 17th December, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑Practice and procedure ‑ Evidence available to be brought on record before closing case by Labour Court‑Petitioner filing grievance petition on his behalf and also on behalf of other workers‑Objection of respondent that petitioner not authorised by other workers thus not competent to bring grievance petition ‑Petitioner present before Court‑Labour Court without asking petitioner to come in evidence box dismissing petition in tote‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, could not close case and dismiss grievance petition of petitioner at least in respect of his own grievance‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision after opportunity of evidence to parties.
Asmat Kamal for Appellants.
Ch. Muhammad Musa for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 10th December, 1984.
The decision, dated 9th July, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellants was dismissed.
2. The appellants challenged their termination from service. Muhammad Munir is one of the appellants. He was one of the petitioners before the learned lower Court. He had brought the petition on behalf of the remaining employees also. Objection was raised that Muhammad Munir was no longer the President of the Union and thus was not competent to bring the petition. The other objection was that the remain ing appellants had not authorised Muhammad Munir to bring an applica tion on their behalf under section 25‑A. The learned lower Court was inclined to decide first the above‑mentioned two objections of the respon dent and invited evidence. As no evidence was made available on 9th July, 1984, the case of the appellants was closed and the petition was dismissed. Prior to that the appellants had applied for summoning the record of the Registrar of Trade Unions and the application was allowed and for 6th May, 1984 the record was summoned. It was not recorded in the order, dated 6th May, 1984 whether the record had been brought or not, nor any direction to summon the record again was givers. When once the sum moning of the record was ordered, it was the duty of the learned lower Court to see that its order had been complied with. If the notice had not been served or the record had not been brought, it should have been sum moned again. If the record had been brought, it should have been either placed on the file or the person who had brought the sate should have been directed to bring it on the next date. The order sheet shows that after 6th May, 1984 no direction to summon the record was given. It was the duty of the appellants also to request the Court for direction to sum mon the record again but on the date prior to the one on which the case was closed, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the Reader bad adjourned the case. Request for summoning the record again could be made to the Court and not to the Reader.
3. So far as the question of the authority of Muhammad Munir, appellant No, 1, to bring action for the remaining appellants is concerned, no doubt, no evidence was brought but the grievance petition so far as it concerned appellant No. 1 was maintainable with the signatures of the said appellant and thus could not be dismissed under the said objection. Muhammad Munir was one of the petitioners before the learned lower Court and there is no statement of the said appellant or other evidence that he had not been terminated or that he had not brought the grievance petition for himself. Apart from it, if no other evidence was present, Muhammad Munir was available to be examined in support of his case. So before closing the case Muhammad Munir should have been asked to come into the witness box in support of his case and to tender documents if any available with him or on the file. If he had been so directed but he had declined to come in the witness box, giving such a reason the case may be legally closed. It is not said in the impugned order that Muhammad Munir had refused to come in the witness box. Needless to say that before closing a case the available evidence is to be brought on the file. So the impugned order is not maintainable.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is again remanded for re-deci sion after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer