Find a Lawyer

1986 P L C 280

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TALAGANG

Versus

GULZAR HUSSAIN

Appeal No. RI‑387 of 1985, decided on 28th September, 1985.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice by Lawyer and also signed by workman‑ Valid.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 25‑A (5)‑‑Scope‑‑Labour Court has to go into facts‑‑Empowered to scrutinise evidence produced in domestic enquiry in support of prosecution and defence.

(c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Dismissal order found wrongful‑‑Workman not asserting that after dismissal he remained jobless‑‑Workman, in circumstances, held, not entitled to back benefits.

N L R 1985 Labour 51 rel.

Mian Farooq Ahmad for Appellant.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1985.

JUDGMENT

The decision, dated 18‑5‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6; Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegation for which the respondent was dismissed was that he took part in unlawful union activities during working hours in Government Workshop, quarrelled with Nazar Muhammad causing breach of discipline and that his progress between 1‑1‑1981 and 31‑5‑1981 was nil.

3. It has been argued that the grievance notice was given by the lawyer and not by the respondent. Strange enough to see that although the objection is about the illegality of the notice yet the said illegal notice has not been produced. Needless to say that only notice could have shown if it was given solely by the lawyer or otherwise. Since the notice is not on the record, the plea stands unproved. It has been argued that the notice produced by the respondent is on the record and its language shows that it was given by the lawyer. The original notice admitted to have been received by the appellant is in his possession. The one produced by the respondent is only office copy and not the original. Even if the said copy is relied upon, it disproves the plea of the appellant inasmuch as it bears the signatures of the respondent alongwith the signatures of the lawyer. No doubt, the language shows that it was given by the lawyer but since it bears the signatures of the respondent also, it cannot be said to have been p given solely by the lawyer. So, the learned lower Court has rightly held that the same is legal. Even if the notice Exh.P.8 is said to be illegal, the reminder Exh.P.2 sent through receipt Exh.P.3 serves the purpose of a valid notice. It was sent within three months.

4. The next point argued is that the learned lower Court has erred in rejecting the evidence of two witnesses and in relying upon the evidence of remaining three witnesses who did not supp3rt the case of the appellant. The argument has no force. According to section z5‑A (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the Labour Court has to go into the facts of the case also and thus has power to scrutinize the evidence produced in support of the prosecution and defence. But in reality no proper inquiry was held. It appears that written unattested affidavits of the witnesses were produced instead of examining the witnesses personally. They were not called for being cross‑examined by the respondent. If the statements were recorded by the Inquiry Officer and that are not pre‑written affidavits then since the respondent was not allowed the opportunity of cross‑examining the witnesses their evidence is of no legal effect and could not be used against the respondent.

5. No doubt, the respondent admitted before the learned lower Court that he was allowed to cross‑examine the witnesses but this is factually wrong. He either does not understand what is meant by cross- examination or the record produced before he learned lower Court is not the inquiry proceedings. So the respondent has been rightly directed to be re‑instated in service. However, the respondent is not entitled to back benefits as he did not assert that after dismissal he remained jobless. The Supreme Court's ruling N L R 1985 Labour 51 is clear on the point.

6. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the respondent is Allowed back benefits.

1. E.

Appeal partly 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer