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. SL‑556 of 1983, decided on 27th June, 1984.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑‑Production of evidence‑‑No evidence can be produced as of right at appellate stage‑‑Party wishing to produce evidence in appeal may apply well before date of arguments‑‑Labour Court setting aside impugned dismissal order for reason that file of domestic enquiry not produced by employer to show that allegation against workman had been proved‑‑No application for additional evidence in appeal made‑ Request for production of file made at appellate stage during arguments without prior notice to opposite party, held, cannot be granted
‑‑‑ Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Second show‑cause notice‑‑Giving second notice an old practice in Punjab Road Transport Board having force of law‑‑Service of show‑cause notice not proved‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified to take notice of such defect‑‑Order of, Labour Court accepting grievance petition against dismissal from service of Bus Conductor and awarding re‑instatement without back benefits, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).
The decision, dated 25‑9‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that although Bus No. 9706 had broken down between Bhai Pheru and Manga Mandi, he claimed refund from Jamber. The excess amount of fare claimed by the respondent is Ra.32.55. Two enquiries were held against the respondent. Firstly, he was dismissed on 3‑1‑1980. On departmental appeal the dismissal order was set aside and fresh enquiry was ordered. After holding second enquiry the respondent was dismissed on 27‑10‑1982.
3. The learned lower Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent on the ground that the enquiry file was not produced to show that the allegation had been proved in the enquiry and that service of second show‑cause notice was not proved. It has been argued that original file had been brought and it was taken away by an employee of the appellant for the preparation of photo‑copies but the Court did not wait. During arguments the learned counsel tried to show the file. I am afraid the learned lower Court's record and judgment do not support the argument that photo copies were being prepared and the Court did not wait. This is an aspersion laid against the learned lower Court without any material. Certain documents were required by the respondent and the learned lower Court had directed their production but the appellant did not produce the same in spite of being burdened with costs. Some adjournments had been given for the production of the said documents. The appellant had ample opportunity to produce the said documents and the enquiry file. So this is wrong that no opportunity was afforded. No application for additional evidence has been given. At the appellate stage no evidence can be produced as of right if any party wishes to produce evidence, it may apply well before the date of arguments. A request to see the file during arguments without prior notice to the opposite party cannot be granted. Since the enquiry file was not brought on the record, the learned lower Court was justified in holding that the charges were not proved.
4. Giving of second show‑cause notice is an old practice in P.R.T.B. cases and thus .has the force of law. Since it was not shown that such a notice was served by giving copy of the enquiry report to the respondent, the learned lower Court rightly took notice of this defect.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
M. Y. H.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer