1989 PLP 653 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Legal objection‑‑Plea at appellate stage that objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction was raised in written statement but Labour Court did not decide same‑‑Labour Court in impugned decision observing that legal objections were not pressed‑‑Contention that such observations were wrong and that legal objections had been pressed‑‑No affidavit attached to appeal mentioning such contention‑‑Observations of judicial Officer, held, cannot be belied without such affidavit. Malik Ghulam Qadir for Appellant. Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1989. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 1‑10‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay to the respondent benefits of which he has been wrongly deprived.

2. The facts are that the respondent was a gateman at the level crossing situated near Railway Station. Samma Satta and he left the gate opened, as a result of which Khyber Mail struck against a bullock cart on 4‑9‑1985. The penalty of stopping of increment temporarily for five years was imposed upon the respondent, No inquiry was held, nor there is any order to the effect that it was not necessary to hold inquiry. According to rule of the Efficiency and Discipline A Rules, it is obligatory upon the employer to hold or not to hold inquiry but it is necessary for him to record an order giving reasons where he decides not to hold inquiry. Since there is no such order, therefore, without holding an inquiry, no punishment could be imposed. The plea taken by the respondent was that he was ill and was not present at the level‑crossing. If an inquiry had been held, he would have an opportunity to prove his assertion and also to prove that he had taken leave and thus was on leave on the date on which the accident took place. The order of imposition of penalty, therefore, was bad in law and has been rightly struck down by the learned lower Court.

3. It has also been argued that objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction was raised in the written statement but the learned lower Court has not decided the same. The learned lower Court has in the impugned decision observed that the legal objections were not pressed. Learned counsel says that this observation is wrong and that the legal objections had been pressed. There is no affidavit attached to the appeal to the effect that the legal objections had been pressed. Without an affidavit the observation of a judicial officer that the legal objections were not pressed, cannot be belied.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./664/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.