Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑578 of 1983, decided on 15th October, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38 (3)‑-Practice and procedure ‑ Grievance petition for re‑instatement‑Petitioner not accepted by employer as a "workman"‑Counsel of respondent employer busy in another Court though informed closing evidence of respondent and accepting grievance petition‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, if not inclined to wait for counsel of respondent should have proceeded ex pane against respondent enabling respondent to have opportunity of application for setting aside ex parte decision‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Labour Court for re‑decision after opportunity of evidence to parties.

Saleem Baig for Appellant.

Azhar Sheikh for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 13th October, 1984.

This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 3rd November, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby closing the evidence of the appellant the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.

2. The respondent was transferred from Multan to Lahore. He did not join at the new place of posting. He made grievance petition for re‑instatement, complaining that he was removed from service orally. The petition was resisted and it was inter alia contended by the appellant that the respondent was not a workman and that he was never removed from service but was absent from duty for not joining at the new place of his posting The proceedings made by the learned lower Court are not proper. The evidence of the appellant was closed for the reason that the counsel had not appeared but on the order‑sheet no order can be found, whereby the case may have been adjourned to 3rd November, 1983. One Abdul Hamid informed the Court that the counsel for the present appellant was on his legs before another Court. The , learned Presiding Officer did not accede to the request of waiting for the lawyer on the ground that the said Abdul Hamid was not holding any authority letter. If the learned lower Court was not inclined to wait, instead of closing the evidence, he should A have proceeded ex parte against the appellant as no duly authorised person nor the counsel was in attendance. If it had been done so, the appellant would have an opportunity to move for the setting aside of the ex parte decision.

3. The other thing is that although it was contended in the written statement by the appellant that the respondent was not a workman, yet the learned lower Court did not record any finding on this point.

4. So the impugned decision is not maintainable and is liable to b set aside. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the ease is remanded for re-decision after affording proper opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence on the whole case.

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.