1992 PLP 87 (PLC)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION,MORO and another Versus HAMZO and another
| Citation | 1992 PLP 87 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Quraishi Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION,MORO and another Versus HAMZO and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 87 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 87 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Quraishi Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 87 (PLC) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION,MORO and another Versus HAMZO and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Sattar Khatri for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Employer on filing grievance petition of workman against his termination, filed written statement, but did not examine any witness to rebut evidence of workman to the effect that order of termination was illegal
Labour Court thus had rightly declined to consider written statement as evidence
Evidence of workman with respect to illegal termination of his service having remained unrebutted, order of Labour Court reinstating workman could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Sattar Khatri for Appellants. Date of hearing: 1st June, 1991. This is an appeal against the order dated 13-5-1991 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No.VII at Sukkur whereby the grievance petition filed by respondent No.l was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was Baildar with the appellant, when his services were terminated on 25-8-1990. After serving grievance notice upon the appellant the respondent filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. The appellant riled written statement before the learned Labour Court but did not examine any witness to rebut evidence of respondent to the effect that the order of removal was illegal. The learned Labour Court has declined to consider the written statement as evidence. In this respect, he gets support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court A in the case reported in PLD 1972 SC
25. As the evidence of the respondent No.l with respect to the illegal termination of his service remained unrebutted, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
3. Mr. Abdul Sattar Khatri has submitted that the appellant could not properly contest grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, as in spite of the reference to the D.G.P. Sukkur, no proper arrangement was made for defence of the grievance petition at Sukkur. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the evidence of respondent No.l remains unrebutted and the respondent who is a poor workman cannot be made to suffer because of lapse or negligence on the part of any Government functionary.
4. The appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1942/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.