Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-174 of 1985, heard on 2nd October, 1985.

---Ss. 25-A & 36--Practice and procedure--Evidence--Admitting of documents in evidence--Failure of Presiding Officer to sign a document while admitting same in evidence--Does not take away its probative value and can be considered in evidence--Objection against correctness of such document raised by opposite party in his affidavit and party refuting same in his cross-examination--Mere exhibition of such documents in absence of proof regarding its correctness, held, have a little probative value.

P L D 1978 S C (A J & K) 6 rel.

Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Appellants.

Abdul Majeed for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1985.

The instant appeal arises against an order passed by IInd Sind Labour Court at Karachi on 30-4-1985, whereby he ordered the respondent be re-instated with full back benefits.

2. The facts briefly are that the respondent was a permanent workman being a Packer since 2-10-1965. He alongwith other workers formed 'Adam Tea Workers Union' in September, 1967, which became the Collective Bargaining Agent in the appellants establishment and that the respondent was elected as its General Secretary in 1968. He, therefore, worked for the cause of workers and his activities were not liked by the appellants and he was told to stop his activities as General Secretary of the C.B.A. to which he refused. Thereafter, the appellants arranged to terrorise him through their hired stooges and criminal cases were initiated under section 107/117, Cr.P.C. These cases were against him and the other workers. The management further, with mala fide intention falsely charged the respondent of having abused one, Mian Gul to which he submitted the explanation and an ex parte enquiry was held and that he was not intimated of the enquiry proceedings and the date of the enquiry. On 6-8-1977, he was gate-stopped and his colleagues were also gate-stopped. The management thereafter wrote letters on wrong addresses and the respondent did not receive any one of them, and that his wages were stopped with effect from 7-1-1980. A labour dispute was pending and after having obtained permission from the 1st Sind Labour Court, Karachi, they dismissed the respondent on 7-10-1980. Therefore, he submitted his grievance notice and thereafter he filed the grievance petition.

3. The management in its reply statement denied the respondent's claim to be a permanent workman and submitted that he was a Packer with effect from 2-10-1965 till 24-6-1977 after which he remained absent from duty without leave or intimation. He was charge-sheeted for his absence and was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service on 5-10-1980. However, the appellants have admitted that the respondent remained General Secretary of the union for sometime before he was removed from service. They have denied their pressure on the respondent to leave union activities and further they have denied to have terrorised the respondent. There are two rival groups among the workers and the criminal litigation was between them. The management had nothing to do with it. They submitted that the respondent abused and used indecent words against the worker, namely, Mian Gul and was charge-sheeted and since his explanation was not found satisfactory, an enquiry was held against him and a notice of enquiry for 2-7-1977 was issued to the respondent but he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. The appellants further submitted that the respondent also remained absent from duty for more than 10 days with effect from 25-6-1977 and a charge-sheet, dated 6-7-1977 was issued to him to which he did not give any satisfactory explanation and an enquiry was initiated against him in respect of this charge-sheet. He was dismissed on account of both the charge-sheets after taking permission from the Labour Court. The permission was obtained because a labour dispute was pending in the Labour Court.

4. The learned counsel of the parties argued this appeal.

5. The grievance petition was earlier disposed of by the learned Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi, on 25-9-1980. The case was remanded by the Tribunal on the ground that it was based on the evidence which did not form part of the record, inasmuch as Exhs. 5-A to 5-0 and were not brought in evidence on the record of the Labour Court.

6. The arguments were that the Exhs. 5-A to 5-0 in Case No. 3 of 1978, were exhibited in evidence but were not signed by the learned Presiding Officer at the time of admitting them in evidence and they cannot be considered to be documents admitted in evidence. They could not be relied upon. Whereas the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the failure of the learned Presiding Officer to sign the documents admitted in evidence was a mere irregularity and not illegality. In this respect the Labour Court has relied on a case reported in PLD 1978 S C (A J s K) 6, wherein it was held that failure of the Judge to record the fact that a document has been admitted in evidence after complying with the necessary legal formalities, does not take its probative) value specially when it has been referred to in arguments and made use of in the judgment.

7. However, the judgment in the reported case appeals to mind. But in the present case an objection to this effect has been raised in the affidavit in evidence of the respondent and his cross-examination wherein he has vehemently denied his signatures or that of any office-bearer of the C.B.A. on the A / D slips and the same were allowed to be exhibited by the appellants' witness without any proof as to whose signatures appeared thereon. The proof was necessary. Mere exhibiting the documents have a little probative value and in the face of denial by the other side, it is got to be fully proved. It is also pertinent to note that in his affidavit in evidence, the respondent vehemently denied of having received the notice of the enquiries in respect of the two charge-sheets issued to him and was confronted in his cross-examination with the registered envelopes and the acknowledgement due-cards, purporting to contain the notices of enquiry and stated that neither the addresses mentioned therein were his correct address nor the acknowledgement due-cards were signed by the respondent or any office-bearers of the union in token of receipt of the registered letters. In view of the above evidence it has become necessary far the appellants to prove the service of the enquiry notices not merely by production of undelivered registered letters or the acknowledgement due slips bearing the signatures of some unknown persons but by summoning the relevant postal authorities to prove that the registered letters were received by the present respondent It was not done.

8. The factum of service of enquiry notices is not proved- The haste and urgency with which the management proceeded for holding an ex parte enquiry clearly suggest that they wanted to get rid of the respondent and this in turn points out of the possibility of hostility and malice. The respondent is a victim of the malice. The Labour Court has allowed the grievance petition by ordering re-instatement with full back benefits and I feel that in this case the malice by the management /appellants is clear and the enquiries held by them were against the provisions of Law and principle of natural justice.

9. In the end, I would dismiss this appeal allowing the respondent fullback benefits as such.

A.E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.