Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. R.Y. Khan 592 to 595 of 1983 and 6, 7, 17 to 20 of 1984, decided on 20th June, 1984.

‑ Ss. 36 & 38‑Practice and procedure‑Fixation of dates for particular purpose‑Competence of Presiding Officer and not that of Reader‑Case fixed by Presiding Officer for production of evidence ‑Reader adjourning case to another date giving a short date without saying anything as to what was to be done on next date‑Party not bringing evidence on such date and Presiding Officer closing case -Party, in circumstances, held, justified to presume that Presiding Officer may fix another date for production of evidence‑Impugned decision of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for re‑decision after opportunity of evidence to parties.

M.A. Farani for Appellant.

Aqa Asaf Jaffary for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th May, 1984.

The 12 appeals captioned above arise from the decisions, dated 19th December, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby Muhammad Mansha, Raja Shabbir Ahmad, Muhammad Yamin, Mahmood Ahmad, Muhammad Anwar and Shafqat Hussain Shah (hereinafter to be called as the respondents) were directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits, accepting the individual grievance petitions of the said respondents. The respondents have in their appeals claimed back benefits, whereas United Bank Limited (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondents in service. Since common question for the present is involved in all the appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. Previously, the grievance petitions of the .above‑mentioned respon dents were dismissed holding that they were not workmen. At the appellate stage application for additional evidence was given by the appel lant for permission to produce power‑of‑attorney. It was directed that the evidence of the actual exercise of the powers given in the .power‑of‑attorney be produced the cause duties are main thing to decide the point. The date of 24th November, 1983 was the date on which the appellant had to produce evidence. The Reader of learned trial Judge adjourned the case to 1st December, 1983 without saying anything what was to be done on the adjourned date. The appellant did not bring evidence on the said date and the case was closed. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that since there was no direction to bring evidence on 1st December 1983, therefore, the appellant did not produce any evidence. Dates in the trial Courts are fixed for various functions to be done. If without direction to produce evidence on a particular date, evidence is produced, there is likelihood that it may not be recorded due to non‑availability of time. Since the date was shot the appellant was justified in thinking that it was given so that the Presiding Officer may fix another date for evidence according to the Court's diary. Needless to say that only the Presiding Officer have to fix the case for a particular purpose according to Court's diary and Readers have no power to order the production of evidence in the absence of the Presiding Officer. If date had been long, it could be presumed that it was for the doing of the act that was to be done on 24th November, 1983. Even in the cause list which is usually affixed on the notice board of the court a day earlier, cases arranged according to the functions to be performed on the date fixed. A case which is not for evidence will be found among the cases not fixed for evidence and the parties, therefore, if care to look into the cause list a day early would not produce evidence if the case is not entered in the column of the cause list meant for the production of evidence. The cause list has not been produced but since there was no direction to produce evidence most probably the case have been entered in the column meant for evidence cases. If the Reader not had in the said order, dated 24th November, 1983 said that the next date i.e. 1st December, 1983 would be for the function that was to be performed by the Court on 24th November, 1983, of course the appellant would have been at fault. The learned lower Court has repeated the maxim "justice delayed justice denied" but it does not mean that the case be closed when there is no direction to produce evidence. Wrong application of the maxim would rather further delay the disposal of the case as has happened in the present case. The purpose for which the case was previously remanded has not been served by wrongly closing the cases of the appellant.

3. As a result; the appeals of the appellant are accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, except that the respondents would remain on duty till the lower Court re‑decides the cases, the cases are remanded with the direction that last opportunity be giver to the appellant to produce evidence. The cases shall be re‑decides according to the material brought on the record. If the learned lower Court finds that the respondents have no case, it would be competent to recall the order of reinstatement and to dismiss the petitions. If the petitions are accepted, the Court would give finding on the point of back benefits also and thus the appeals of the respondent failed and are dismissed. The cases shall be decided within two months.

A. E.

Orders accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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