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. RYK‑204 of 1984, decided on 18th July, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3) ‑ Practice and procedure--Grievance petition against dismissal from service‑Petitioner proposing before Labour Court that if person who was stated to have conducted domestic enquiry takes an oath on Holy Quran to the effect that he held the enquiry and that petitioner had not attended enquiry wilfully, then his petition may be dismissed‑Person so cited refusing to take such special oath‑Labour Court on that ground alone and without discussing merits accepting grievance petition‑No adverse presumption, in circumstances, held, could be drawn by Labour Court from refusal of Enquiry Officer to take special oath and Labour Court should have after opportunity to employer to rebut evidence produced by petitioner decided case on merits‑Appellate Tribunal setting aside order of Labour Court and remanding case for decision on merits after opportunity of evidence to employer respondent.
Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for Appellant.
Aqa Asaf Jaffary for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 11th July, 1984.
The decision dated 18th April, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur has been challenged, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. On the ground of misconduct the respondent was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held which culminated in his dismissal. The griev ance petition of the respondent was opposed and he produced evidence in support of his case. Before an opportunity could be given to the appellant to produce evidence, the respondent proposed that if Mr. Saleemullah Khan took an oath on the Holy Qur'an that he held enquiry and that the former had not wilfully attended the enquiry, his petition be dismissed. Mr. Saleemullah refused to take the special oath ' and only on this ground without discussing the merits, the learned lower Court accepted the grievance petition. No adverse presumption could be drawn from the refusal of Mr. Saleemullah, Enquiry Officer, to take special oath. In these circumstances the learned lower Court should have after giving opportunity to the appellant to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent, decided the case on merits. The impugned order, there. fore, is not sustainable.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded back for decision on merits after affording proper opportunity to the appellant to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent.
A. E.
Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer