Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Improper presentation of‑‑Grievance petition was admittedly presented by counsel‑‑Presence of workman disputed‑‑Solitary statement of workman, held, would require corroboration‑‑Counsel being present at time of presentation, failure on his part to come to witness‑box would raise presumption that he was not prepared to support statement of workman as to his presence at time of presentation of such grievance petition.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Presentation not proper‑‑Effect‑‑Where presentation of grievance petition was not proper, such petition, held, would be rejected and could not be dismissed.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 38(3)‑‑Fresh grievance petition, filing of‑‑Where due to lack of proper presentation, grievance petition required to be rejected was dismissed by Labour Court, same was to be treated as rejected‑ Labour Appellate Tribunal partly accepted appeal to enable workman to file fresh grievance petition if so advised and if filing thereof would be within limitation.

Munawar Ahmad Javaid for Appellant.

Naeem Bukhari for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st June, 1986.

This is an appeal emerging from the decision, dated 11‑3‑1986 recorded by learned Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was not present at the time of presentation of his petition by his counsel.

2. Previously on merits the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed and he had come in appeal. At the appellate stage objection was raised by the respondent that as is presentation of the grievance petition was not proper, the petition was not maintainable on that short ground. Since such an objection was not raised before the learned lower Court and it required evidence, therefore, the case was remanded setting aside the decision of the learned lower Court on merits. The finding of the learned lower Court on the point that the appellant was not present in person on the day of presentation of the petition appears to be correct. The Reader of the Court was examined by the appellant but he did not support his case by saying that he was present on the day of presentation. The learned lower Court is correct in saying that the appellant being an interested person his solitary statement not corroborated by any other independent evidence was not believe-able. If corroborated evidence had not been available of course the question could arise that the solitary statement of the worker may be accepted but in the present case corroborative evidence was available. . The grievance petition was admittedly presented by the Lawyer and the only point for consideration was whether the appellant had attended the Court on the day of presentation. Since admittedly the learned counsel for the appellant was present on the day of presentation he was the best witness to depose whether the appellant had attended the Court on the said date or not. Failure on the part of the learned counsel to come in the witness‑box raises presumption that he was not prepared to support the statement of the appellant that the latter was present.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since he had filed his affidavit in the appeal it is sufficient but I do not find any force in this argument. On the date of presentation the opposite party was not present and, therefore, was not aware of the true fact whether the worker was or was not present on the said date. He, therefore, cannot controvert the affidavit by filing the counter‑affidavit. The respondent could try to show by cross‑examine the learned counsel for the appellant if he had come in the witness‑box to show that the appellant had not attended the Court in person on the questioned date. I, therefore, uphold the finding of the learned lower Court.

4. Since the previous decision of the learned lower Court recorded on the merits of the case was set aside it should have decided the case afresh on merits discussing the evidence and it was not sufficient to say that his finding remained the same as announced on 8‑6‑1985. Even otherwise it is necessary to set aside the finding to decide the point whether the fresh petition to be brought by the appellant would be within time. If the decision of the learned lower Court stands against him he would not be able to present the grievance petition afresh. In B cases where the finding is that the presentation was not proper the grievance petitions are rejected and cannot be dismissed. The directions of dismissal, therefore, amounts to only rejection.

5. As a result of observations made above I partly accept the appeal and set aside the decision of the learned lower Court recorded on merits not conclusively but only to enable the appellant to present C the grievance petition if so advised. If he presents the petition it would be decided on merits if it is found to be within limitation.

A. A.

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.