1989 PLP 624 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Evidence‑‑Documentary evidence available but not produced‑‑Oral evidence, in circumstances, held, had no value. Javed Altaf for Appellant. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1988. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision data 13‑9‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service, with back benefits.

2. The facts are that the respondent, who is a hanks checker, was remove from service on the allegation of being guilty of habitual late coming. The absences were not for full days but the respondent is alleged to have left dui before the closing of the working hours.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the, respondent being hanks checker was not covered by the definition of workman The argument has no force. While checking articles one has to use his hands and thus does manual work. It has been further argued that the respondent had supervisory powers and since his wages were in excess of Rs.8W per month, he was ousted from the definition of workman given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. To prove this fact two leave applications Exh.PF have been produced. They bear the signatures of not only the respondent but of the head of the department also. It does not appear whether the respondent simply forwarded the applications or recommanded them, because over his signatures there is no such indication. His designation is given as shift incharge. It is thus clear that the leave applications were allowed by the head of e department and not by the respondent. He may have simply forwarded the applications for proper orders. Since there is no note of recommendation, it does not show that the respondent had exercised any supervisory powers while signing said applications. There are other documents also on the basis of which the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent had supervisory veers. Firstly, those documents were not tendered in evidence as they do not are any exhibit mark and secondly it is not clear if the respondent by putting his natures performed any supervisory duty. One application is of Ibad Ali for being made permanent. It bears the signatures of the respondent but it does not pear in what capacity and for what purpose he signed it. The recommendation r confirmation is not signed by him but by some other person. The other application is of Asghar Ali for employment. No doubt, it bears the signatures of the respondent but similarly it does not appear why he signed it. But this is clear that the application was recommended by some other officer whose signatures also appear and this shows that the respondent did not make any recommendation. Apart from it, the applications of Ibad Ali and Asghar Ali too were not tendered in evidence as they do not bear any exhibit mark and thus cannot be considered. Since according to the evidence, the respondent was performing manual duties and had no supervisory duty, he is a workman.

4. Even the oral evidence was produced during the inquiry without the production of any record to show that the respondent was in the habit of coming late or leaving earlier. Where documentary evidence is available, oral evidence has no value. In these circumstances, the respondent was rightly reinstated in service.

5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./628/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.