1998 PLP 462 (PLC)

1994 SCMR 1555; PLD 1995 SC 406; 1997 CLC 768 and 1995 CLC 1578 ref. Ch. M. Ikram Zahid for Appellant. Qaiser Saleem for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th October, 1997. By an order dated 19-4-1995, the learned Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, closed the evidence of the grievance-petitioner, observing that he had failed to produce proof in support of his averments, although he was afforded third opportunity for the purpose. On the said date, he made an application that he could not bring his evidence on account of an emergency; but in the opinion of the learned lower Court it was a mere pretext to get an adjournment and delay the disposal of the case. According to the assessment of the learned lower Court, the petitioner was not entitled to further indulgence in the matter, particularly as he had himself not appeared in the Court. For want of proof the petition was dismissed on the same day i.e. on. 19-4-1995.

2. Shabbir Ahmad Alvi filed an appeal on 4-6-1995, assailing the validity/soundness of the aforesaid order. It is maintained that the grievance petitioner had not actually been indolent in the pursuit of his cause, as he had made an application for summoning certain record on 13-2-1995, and two dates of hearing thereafter were consumed in the process. It was for the first time that he was pointedly asked to produce his evidence on 19-4-1995, vide order dated 26-3-1995. Submission is that the default in the production of evidence, on his part, if any, was not recurring or contumacious, and by all means he could legitimately ask for another date for adducing his evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has in support of his plea tendered certain rulings, as for instance 1994 SCMR 1555, PLD 1995 SC 406, 1997 CLC 768 and 1995 CLC 1578 SC (AJ&K). It is so well-known that Courts of law should avoid decision of cases in the fashion of technical knock-out, as technicalities have little room in the administration of justice. Law always leans in favour of adjudication of matters on merits, rather than on the strength of sheer technicalities. Law cannot be used as a vehicle for denying relief to an aggrieved party, on the ground of technical non-observance of procedural laws and rules, since all rules or procedures are meant to promote cause of justice, and Courts must always insist on decision of cases on merits, rather than making use of mere technicalities as a means of oppression against a party to certain litigation.

4. All said and done, there remains no confusion about the fact that the learned lower Court appears to have proceeded in the matter in undue haste, and the aggrieved person was entitled to some more 'indulgence', on the part of the Court. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal, although with no order as to costs. The appellant will be afforded a couple of opportunities further, for producing and concluding his evidence; where after the other side will have the right to adduce its evidence. Case shall be decided by the learned Labour Court in accordance with law, within of course a reasonable period. The case shall come up in the Court below for further proceedings on 22-10-1997. H. B.T./911/Lb.P Appeal allowed.