1978 PLP 479 (PLC)
MESSRS LAMICA CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus MAJEEDULLAH AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1978 PLP 479 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MESSRS LAMICA CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus MAJEEDULLAH AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 479 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 479 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 479 (PLC) (MESSRS LAMICA CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus MAJEEDULLAH AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Industrial dispute‑ Fact regarding resignation of petitioner workman disputed Respondent (employer) failing opportunity allowed by Labour Court to get thumb‑impression examined/compared through Finger Print Expert‑Labour Court, in circumstances held; justified to draw adverse inference against contention of employer. Abdullah for Appellant Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th April 1977 This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re instatement of the respondents with full back benefits.
2. The respondents were in the permanent employment of the appellant. According to the respondents, they were stopped at the gate on 7tb June 1976 and were not permitted to resume their duties. After service of grievance notice, they approached the Labour Court. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondents had submitted their resignations on 4th June, 1976 and the same were accepted.
3. Evidence was tendered by bath the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Courts came to the conclusion that it was not established that the respondents had submitted their resignations. On the basis of this conclusion, he ordered re‑instatement.
4. On perusal of the record anti proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Mr. Soklyn had filed an affidavit but It was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that it was never sworn before any authority. No exception can be taken to this view. There Is no endorsement that it was sworn before any authority, consequently, it was rightly excluded fro A consideration. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had made an application to the Labour Court to send thumb‑impression of the respondents on the said resignations to the Finger‑print Expert but the coats wore never deposited in spite of the opportunities having been allowed. Consequently, it is justified to draw an adverse inference to the effect that the document purported to bear the thumb‑impressions of the respondents were not their thumb impressions. Of course, two witnesses were examined to support the contention that the respondents had thumb marked in their presence, but their evidence is Interested and could not be believed, specially when in spite of the fact that the opportunity allowed to the appellant to get the thumb impressions compared was not availed of.