Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑522 of 1983, decided on 5th August, 1984.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Retirement on completing 30 years service challenged as against prescribed instructions‑Respondent failed to produce in evidence original document relied upon by appellant‑Appellant's request for summoning of witness in secondary evidence also denied‑Held : Order of lower Court not legally correct, case remanded for decision afresh after summoning of witness and recording his statement.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Appellant.

Syed Noor Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 23rd July, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 13th September, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a Proof Reader. He was retired on completing 30 years' service on 20th December,'1978 vide order Exh. P. 3 with effect from 31st December, 1978. The appellant claims that by means of an office order it was decided that no one would be retired on completing 30 years' service. Copy of that office order is Exh. P. 1. It was not specifically denied in the written statement although it was filed alongwith the grievance petition and it was mentioned in the said petition. The appellant had summoned the original letter but when its existence was denied, the appellant called for the register, in which such letters are entered. That too was not produced on the ground that no such register was maintained. Besides summoning the register, the appellant had requested for the summoning of Mr. Muhammad Idrees in his mis cellaneous application dated 12th June, 1982. The register was ordered to be summoned by the learned lower Court but it missed to summon Muhammad Idrees. The appellant then made second application on 3rd July, 1982 and again requested for summoning Muhammad 1drees as P. 'W. The application was rejected by the order, dated 5th August, 1983 an the ground that the said witness should have been requested to be summoned earlier. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer missed to see that in the application, dated 12th June, 1982 request for summoning Muhammad Idrees had been made. Since the documents were not produced, the appellant had a right to produce secondary evidence. Since he did apply for the summoning of Muhammad 1drees twice, the order refusing to accede to his request was not legally correct. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the order Exh. R. 1 it is specifically mentioned that on completing 30 years' service, employees can be retired, so no fruitful result can be achieved by examin ing Muhammad Idrees. Exh. P. 1 carries a subsequent date, so if in reality Exh. P. 1 was issued, the rule may have been changed to this extent. It is the right of the parties to produce evidence of their own choice, provided it is relevant. Before evidence comes on the record, it cannot be forecasted that it would be of no use.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that after summoning Muhammad Idrees and records his noted and after giving opportunity to the respondent to rebut the said evidence, the case be re‑decided.

M. I.

Appeal 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.