2006 PLP 475 (PLC)

MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. As both the appeals are outcome of one single judgment dated 25-1-2003, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal.

3. Brief facts of the cases are that Respondents were serving in Appellant's Digri Sugar Mills since 1996. According to them, they formed a union under the name of Digri Sugar Mills Workers Union and had applied for its registration. This act of Respondent annoyed appellant's management, as such leave application tendered by respondents was not received by them and were truned out of the office. This fact was brought in knowledge of respondent Trade Union.

4. On 5-3-1999. Direcor Labour submitted a letter before National Industrial Relation Commission, showing that both respondents had submitted their voluntary resignation on 18th and 19th February, 1999. The matter was contested by the respondents and finally by one single judgment dated 25-1-2003, services of respondents were restored with full back-benefits. Being aggrieved by this judgment, these appeals have been filed.

5. It is objected by learned counsel for the applicant that two separate applications were filed by the respondents namely Mahboob Alam and Azizur Rehman, having different facts. Evidence in both the matters was also recorded separately. Written arguments were also filed by learned counsel for parties in their respective cases. But surprisingly for the purpose of pronouncement of judgment they were taken up together without any proper order of consolidation.

6. It is further contended that without considering the evidence produced by the parties in their respective case, they were taken up together ignoring the fact that they are distinct to each other. It is further pointed out by him that issues were framed in the matters, though are not required to be framed in labour matters. But if, the parties were asked to produce evidence on the controversial issues then they should have been discussed and finding on respective issues should had been given. But perusal of the impugned judgment shows that all these fundamental aspects have been totally ignored.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for appellant that the evidence of respondents on the point of resignation made by them in presence of representative of appellant has totally been ignored.

8. In reply to it, learned counsel for the Respondent has argued that though two separate cases were filed, but the facts of both suits were same. Applicant had also adopted same statement of his own witness in both matters. However, it is admitted that the statement of respondent was recorded separately, as such, learned trial Court has rightly disposed of both the matters by a single judgment.

9. The perusal of impugned judgment reveals that evidence produced by the parties in their respective cases have been discussed in a way as if consolidated one statement was recorded in both the matter. Learned counsel for appellant has referred 2004 YLR 46, wherein it is observed that evidence recorded in one case cannot be read in another case unless the same is produced and exhibited in the later cases in accordance with Rules of Evidence that is to say Qanun-i-Shahadat Order. Nor the issues framed in the matters have been discussed in the light of evidence produced by the parties of both appeals.

10. After going through the record I think it proper that impugned judgments be set aside and both the cases be remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding the same separately on the points and grounds raised by both the respondents separately on the basis of record already available. Order accordingly.

11. The back-benefits already deposited by the applicant may be refunded to him. H.B.T./D-35/K Order accordingly