1996 PLP 331 (PLC)

This judgment shall dispose of sixteen (16) Appeals bearing Nos.MN‑96/94‑Punjab to MN‑111/94‑Punjab from the decisions of the Punjab Labour Court No. 9; Multan dated 17th of January, 1994, whereby the grievance petitions filed by the respondents were accepted, they were held permanent employees and the appellants were directed to regularise them from their respective dates of appointment in the relevant pay scales.

2. The respondents are the employees of the Multan Development Authority. Alleging that they were working against permanent posts and had become permanent workmen, they filed grievance petitions praying for a direction to the appellants to treat them as permanent workmen from the dates of their appointment in their relevant scales of pay.

3. The appellants contested the grievance petitions alleging that the respondents were work‑charged employees and they could not attain the status of permanent workmen.

4. Before adducing evidence, the respondents filed applications under Article 163 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984 for the disposal of their grievance petitions on the oath of the appellants, stating that they themselves also were prepared to take oath. The appellants in their replies agreed to take the oath.

5. On 16th of January, 1994 the statements of the respondents were recorded on Oath. However, Ch. Muhammad Riaz, Executive Engineer, one of the appellants who was present, was not willing to take the oath. On the request of learned counsel for the appellants an adjournment was granted for the oath of the Director‑General, the other appellant. The grievance petitions were fixed on 17th of January, 1994 for this purpose. On this date, the Director‑General did not appear. However, Ch. Muhammad Riaz, Executive Engineer expressed his willingness to take the oath. The learned Labour Court declined to give him the oath on account of his conduct on the previous date and accepting the statements on oath of the respondents, accepted their grievance petitions and passed the impugned decisions.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals ?

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I am afraid, the action of the learned Labour Court in decling Ch. Muhammad Riaz, Executive Engineer to take oath is not sustainable. It generally happens that in an official matter, an employer feels reluctant to singly accept responsibility for an action and perform the collaboration of his superiors in the matter. In this case, if on one date the Executive Engineer was hesitant to take oath, no adverse inference was justified, especially when on the following date he was ready to take the oath. May be meanwhile he had been asked to do so by the Director‑General who was in fact the Competent Authority. In these circumstances, the impugned decisions cannot be maintained.

8. In the result, I accept all the appeals, set aside the impugned decisions and remand the grievance petitions to the learned Labour Court for their decision afresh in accordance with law after administering oath to the Executive Engineer. In case the respondents, in view of the changed situation, resile from their offer of the disposal of their grievance petitions on oath, the learned Labour Court shall decide the same on merits in accordance with law after recording evidence which may be adduced by the parties.

9. The parties shall appear before the learned Labour Court on 4th of August, 1994. H.B.T./788/Lb.P ???????? ??????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed/Order accordingly.