1984 PLP 589 (PLC)

This appeal is directed against the order, dated 4th April, 1983, passed by the 1st Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969.

2. The facts leading up to the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant has been a permanent employee of the respondent establishment. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct and after an enquiry he was found guilty resulting in his dismissal from service on 5th October, 1980. He served a grievance notice on the respondent and his grievance having not been redressed, he filed an application under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969, as stated above.

3. The respondent filed the reply statement stating his case. The parties led their evidence. The appellant examined himself, Bashir-ud -Din, Assistant Director (Trade Unions) and the respondent examined the Factory Manager, Mr. Qutubuddin, Mehboob Sheikh, Production Incharge and Amir Ali, Secretary of the Adams Tea Workers' Union, but neither the enquiry officer was examined nor the enquiry papers or the enquiry report and other documents in respect of the enquiry relied upon by the respondent were produced in accordance with the rules of the evidence Act. In spite of it, the learned Labour Court relying on such evidence recorded in another application bearing No. 3/78 dismissed the application filed by the appellant under section 95-A, I. R. O., 1969, by the impugned order above-mentioned. Aggrieved by it, the appellant has come up in this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Abdul Majeed for the appellant and Mr. H. A, Jafry for the respondent. It is a common ground that the evidence with regard to the misconduct allegedly committed by the appellant which is the basis of the whole case was not adduced on behalf of the respondent in accordance with the rules of the Evidence Act. The relevant observations in the impugned order in that respect are as under :- "It is pertinent to mention that at the relevant time an application in respect of industrial dispute was pending between the management and the C. B. A. Under the circumstances, as a result of precaution ary measure, the management before issuing the dismissal order filed an application under section 47 (1) (b) of the I. R. O. bearing application No. 3 of the 1978, seeking permission of the Court for issuing dismissal order against the applicant. That application pro ceeded on merits before this Court. My learned predecessor Mr. Salahuddin Mirza by his order dated 25th September, 1980 allowed the said application and granted permission to the management termi nate the services of present applicant Ali Muhammad. Since all the relevant original documents have been produced in the file of the said application bearing No. 3 of 1978 decided by this Court on 25th September, 1983, hence the record and proceedings of the said applica tion have been placed alongwith the file of the present grievance petition."

5. It is also a common ground that the learned Labour Court should not have legally considered such an evidence while disposing the applica tion filed under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969, by the appellant. It appears that the learned Labour Court has discussed and relied on in the instant case the evidence recorded in Application No. 3/78, decided by the Court on 25th September, 1980, while dismissing the application of the appellant. The learned Labour Court, has, therefore, failed to record evidence in the instant case, in accordance with the rules of the Evidence Act, causing a serious prejudice to the case of the appellant, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the parties have, therefore, agreed that the case be remanded for recording evidence in accordance with the rules of the Evidence Act. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order, dated 4th April, 1983, passed by the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal. The learned Labour Court shall allow the parties to lead additional evidence in accord ance with the Rules of the Evidence Act and then dispose of the case according to law. However, by consent of both the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the case is transferred to Labour Court No. 11, Karachi, for disposal according to law. A. E. Appeal allowed. Case remanded.