Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑600 of 1981, decided on 24th February, 1982.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 a 38(3)‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 64‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Adjudication of‑‑Evidence‑‑Photo copy of document not admissible unless original brought and shown to Court‑‑Petitioner seeking re‑instatement on plea that extension of suspension not made by competent authority‑‑Photo copy of extension order relied by Labour Court while dismissing grievance petition‑‑No indication as to who produced such photo copy before Labour Court and that even at arguments stage‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, held, not sustainable hence set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for re‑decision with direction to respondent (employer) to produce original impugned order.

Muhammad Anwar Lodhi for‑ Appellant.

Ch. Muhammad Sharif for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24th February, 1985.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 29‑9‑1981, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant in which he had challenged the order of the extension of his suspension was dismissed.

2. The appellant was Assistant Yardmaster, Pakistan Railway. He was suspended on 31st March, 1981 w.e.f. 1‑4‑1981. On 1‑7‑1981 the suspension was extended. The appellant challenged the extension of suspension on the ground that order was not passed by the competent authority, thus, extension was illegal. He prayed for re‑Instatement with back benefits. The order of extension of suspension was not produced in evidence even though opportunities were given, therefore, on 10‑9‑1981 learned Presiding Officer closed case of the respondent. On the said date request was made by the learned counsel for the respondent for adjournment to produce the copy of order of extension of suspension but it was disallowed, and the case was closed. On 26th September, 1981 the arguments were heard and case was decided. The photo-stat copy of order of extension of suspension marked R.I. was brought on the date on which arguments were heard. This is not known how this document was tendered in evidence because no person who made, brought original and had tendered photo-stat copy the evidence was examined. Photostat copy is not admissible unless the original is brought and shown to the Court and is ordered by the Court to be returned. If the employee had brought the original and tendered copy the appellants' counsel would have opportunity to cross‑examine him if he had been under oath. From the document it does not appear which authority had extended the period of suspension. Only the employee who had brought the copy could identify the signatures and who was the authority. Since the case has been opened by the appellant he was entitled to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent but since the document was received in evidence on the date of the judgment the appellant had no opportunity to meet this document and his case has been prejudiced. As observed above unless some person explained, it does not appear who had recommended the extension and which authority had extended period of suspension. In these circumstances the order of the learned lower Court Is not sustainable. I accordingly accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order remand the case with the direction that the respondent be directed to bring the original order of extension of suspension and copy be received in evidence after original is proved and it la disclosed which authority had passed the order. Appellant shall also be given opportunity to rebut the evidence and the case shall be decided afresh. Learned Presiding Officer will be at liberty to allow further evidence opportunity to the parties If he considers necessary.

M.Y.H.

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.