1991 PLP 564 (PLC(CS))

Laws Cited

Representation

• ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Reversion‑‑‑Grievance application of appellant was examined and cross‑examined before Labour Court‑‑‑Respondent had examined witnesses and filed their affidavit in evidence but appellant could not examine them because his counsel had fallen sick‑‑‑Labour Court closed side of appellant and decided matter without waiting for counsel for appellant to cross‑examine evidence for respondent‑‑‑Appellant prayed for remanding case to Labour Court for decision on merit and counsel for respondent conceded to it‑‑‑Record also showed that certain facts were either not properly proved or not brought on record by producing relevant documents‑‑‑Impugned order of Labour Court was set aside and case was remanded back to Labour Court for giving an opportunity to appellant to cross‑examine witnesses of respondent and decide matter.
• MA. Hassan Malik for Appellant.
• A.T. Mahmood for Respondents.
• Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1990.
• ----S. 25-A---Reversion---Grievance application of appellant was examined and cross-examined before Labour Court---Respondent had examined witnesses and filed their affidavit in evidence but appellant could not examine them because his counsel had fallen sick---Labour Court closed side of appellant and decided matter without waiting for counsel for appellant to cross-examine evidence for respondent---Appellant prayed for remanding case to Labour Court for decision on merit and counsel for respondent conceded to it---Record also showed that certain facts were either not properly proved or not brought on record by producing relevant documents---Impugned order of Labour Court was set aside and case was remanded back to Labour Court for giving an opportunity to appellant to cross-examine witnesses of respondent and decide matter.
• 2. I have heard Mr. MA. Hassan Malik, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.T. Mahmood, the learned Advocate for the respondents.
• 3. The appellant filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court against the order of his reversion. The appellant was examined and cross -examined in the Labour Court. The respondents had examined witnesses, namely, Mumtaz Khaliq and Abdul Wahid Noumani and filed their affidavits-in-evidence, However, the appellant could not cross-examine them because his counsel had fallen sick. The learned Labour Court had closed the side of the appellant and decided the matter without waiting further for the counsel of the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents. In his memo of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant had given elaborate reasons for his failure to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents before the learned Labour Court and had requested that the case be remanded to the learned Labour Court for giving an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents. Mr. A.T. Mahmood, (he learned Advocate for the respondents had conceded that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded back to the learned Labour Court for cross-examination of the witnesses.
• 4. However, Mr. MA. Hassan Malik, the learned Advocate for the appellant requested that the appeal be decided on merits. On going through the record of the case, I find that certain facts which were pleaded by the parties were either not properly proved or not brought on record by producing the relevant documents. Even, in the Memo of appeal, the prayer of the appellant is to remand the case back to the learned Labour Court to enable him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents. In view of the no-objection given by Mr. A.T, Mahmood, the learned Advocate for the respondents, I hereby set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the learned Labour Court to give an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents. As the case is very old, the learned Labour Court is directed to decide the matter afresh as early as possible unprejudiced by its previous orders.

Judgment & Decree