Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. FD‑840 of 1982, decided on 24th February, 1982.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 t 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Impugned order challenged as not signed by Factory Manager and only by Labour Officer‑‑Document bearing signatures of Factory Manager produced during final arguments before Labour Court‑ Petitioner/appellant not given opportunity to show that such document was prepared afterwards and that Factory Manager was absolutely ignorant of facts‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition, in circumstance, set aside by Appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for decision afresh after opportunity of evidence to parties regarding such document‑‑Impugned termination order, held, will remain intact during intervening period.
Shamim Ahmad Khan for Appellant.
Kanwar Shamim Akhtar for Respondent.
This appeal arises from the decision, dated 11‑12‑1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement was dismissed.
2. The facts are that the appellant was oilman in the respondent Mills and his services were terminated for the reason that he had remained on long leave intermittently with the result that the respondent Mills suffered and could not during his leave period appoint a substitute. The grounds on which the order of termination had been challenged is that it was passed by the Labour Officer and not by the General Manager who was only competent to pass the order. The order brought on the record by the appellant bears signatures of the Labour Officer and not of the General Manager. The document Exh. R‑4 bears the signatures of General Manager on the left side but under the order signatures are of the Labour Officer for the General Manager. During argument before the Labour Court C‑1 was produced which is to the effect that the notice be issued to the appellant asking him to report for duty otherwise on account of his long leave the management would be constrained to terminate his services. In compliance with the notice the appellant resumed duty for one day but again sought‑ leave for two days which was sanctioned and he was terminated. The order of the General Manager appears after the date on which notice was directed to be issued to the appellant to resume duty. His representative says that since C‑1 was produced during final argument the appellant have no opportunity to show to the learned lower Court‑that document even was prepared afterwards and that the General Manager was absolutely ignorant of the leave obtained by the appellant before the order of termination was passed. This fact cannot be denied that since even it was brought on record during argument the appellant have no opportunity to show to the Court the value and worth of this document. In view of the observation made above I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the lower Court remand the case with the direction that after affording opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence to rebut C‑1 and R‑4 the case be decided afresh. During this period the order of termination will stand intact. The parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 11‑3‑1982.
H. Y. M.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer