Find a Lawyer

Application No. SA‑357/79, Punjab, decided on 16th July, 1979.

‑‑‑S. 114(e)‑‑Presumption‑‑Letter sent by registered post proved to have been put into post office, held, would give rise to strong presumption that same reached its dictation.

Harihar Banerji and others v. Ramshehi Roy and others A I R 1918 P C 102 and Shamus Textiles Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Iqbal and Punjab Labour Court No. 3 N L R 1978 Lah. 477 ref.

‑‑‑S. 67(2)(b)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1960, r. 11‑ Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , 0. XLI, rr. 12, 14 t 16‑‑Service of notice, mode of‑‑Applicability of procedure provided in C.P.C.‑‑Specific procedure having been prescribed for service of notice under rule 11 of West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1960, provisions of Civil Procedure Code, held, would not be applicable in the serving of notice.

‑‑‑R. 81‑‑Service of notice, applicability of‑‑Rule 81, Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973, refers to hearing of appeal against award and not against decision‑‑For service of notice of appeal against decision, provisions of Civil Procedure Code, held, would not be applicable‑ Appeal against award‑‑Procedure prescribed under Civil Procedure Code of course would be applicable.

Pir Anwar‑ur‑Rehman for Applicants.

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Respondent.

This is an application for the setting aside of my ex parte order, dated 25th February, 1979.

2. The respondent union had filed a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 30‑7‑1977 to the effect that the workers were entitled to Rest and Recreation Allowance equivalent to one month's pay for the period from 1‑7‑1974 to 30‑6‑1977 vide notification Exh. P.2, dated 22‑3‑1969. The details of the amount due were given in Exh. D.9. The petition was resisted by the applicants on the ground that in view of notification Exh. D.3, which was in force from 1‑7‑1977, the previous notification stood superseded and, therefore, the workers would be paid Rest and Recreation Allowance in accordance with the instructions.

3. The learned Labour Court, vide decision, dated 2‑4‑1978, accepted the plea of the applicants and dismissed the petition of the respondent. Against that decision the respondent union filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 24‑4‑1978, which came up for hearing on 25‑4‑1978. On that date the appeal was admitted and notices were ordered to be sent to the applicants for 29‑5‑1978. On that date the applicants did not turn up in spite of service and so ex parte proceedings were ordered against them. The case was then adjourned for arguments on 8‑7‑1978, on which date arguments could not be heard, as the record had not been received. Finally, the arguments were heard on 22‑2‑1979 and the case was fixed for orders on 25‑2‑1979. On that date the appeal was accepted and the applicants were directed to pay Rest find Recreation Allowance in accordance with notification Ex. P.2.

4. On 16‑4‑1979 the applicants woke up and filed the instant application for the setting aside of my ex parte order.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the notice for appearance of the applicants on 29‑5‑1978 was not served on them.

6. Front' the perusal of the record I find that on 29‑4‑1978 a registered notice was sent to the applicants for appearance on 29‑5‑1978. The address of the applicants was correctly given. In the case, Harihar Banerji and others v. Ramshehi Roy and others A I R 1918 P C 102 it was observed:‑‑

"If a letter properly directed, containing a notice to quit, is proved to have been put into the post office, it is presumed that the letter reached its destination at the proper time according to the regular course of business of the post office, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed and that presumption could apply with greater force to letters which the sender has taken the precaution to register, and is not rebutted but strengthened by the fact that a receipt for the letter is produced signed on behalf of the addressee by some person other than the addressee himself."

In the instant case the notice was sent by registered post and, therefore, there was a strong presumption that it reached its destination. In view of the above, 1 reject the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants, that the service of notice was not effected.

7. The learned counsel for the applicants further contended that since the service of notice was not in accordance with Order XLI, rules 12, 14 and 15, C.P.C. it was no notice in the eye of law. I find no force in this contention because there is nothing in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or in the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973 as to in what manner service should be effected and the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to these proceedings but the manner of service has been laid down by rule 11 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1960 framed by the West Pakistan Government under section 37 of the industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. These rules are still in force by virtue of section 67 (2)(b) of the Ordinance, 1969 and have not so far been superseded or repealed. The aforesaid rules lay down that any notice, summons, process or order issued by the Court may be served either personally or by registered post. In this connection reference should also be made to section 4(1) of the Code of Civil B Procedure, which reads as under:‑

In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be sdeemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force.

Therefore, in view of the above, Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable in the serving of notice because under rule 11 of Rules 1960 a specific procedure for service of notice has been prescribed.

8. The learned counsel for the applicants also contended that rule 11 of Rules 1960 with regard to service of notice had been superseded by rule 81 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973. The said rule reads as under:‑

In hearing an appeal against an Award the Labour Appellate Tribunal shall follow the same procedure as is followed by an Appellate Authority in hearing the first appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908).

This contention has no force because the above rule only refers to the hearing of an appeal against an Award and not against a decision. In the instant case the appeal was against a decision and not against and Award given in an Industrial dispute.

9. Further, I find that the notice sent to the applicants was properly addressed and the post pre‑paid and, therefore, there is no reason that it did not reach its destination. In the case, Shamus Textiles MIRED Ltd, v. Muhammad Iqbal and Punjab Labour Court No. 3, N L R 1978 Lah. 477, it was held by the Lahore High Court that such a service was not deficient in the requirements even under the Code of Civil Procedure.

10. In the result I find no merit in this application, which is hereby dismissed.

A.A.

Application dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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