1989 PLP 95 (PLC)

This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 9‑2‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad whereby the industrial dispute brought by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that no evidence in support of the case was produced. Mr. Shahid Sultan Bhatti. S.D.O. Sargodha who appears on every date has today again made request for adjournment on the ground that the father of the learned counsel for the respondents had fallen ill. On the previous date also the request for adjournment was on the same ground. Prior to that three adjournments were given on the e a ground that permission to engage a counsel had not been obtained. No power of attorney of any Advocate has been produced. Question of adjournment on the ground that father of the learned counsel has fallen ill arises only when it is shown that some lawyer has been engaged. It appears that the respondent is interested in delaying the disposal of the appeal. Uptil today no lawyer has appeared who may have been engaged nor any power of attorney has been produced. In these, circumstances the adjournment has been refused.

2. There are 41 demands. The learned lower Court has not discussed any demand. No evidence was produced by the respondents also. Many objections were raised in the written statement which require evidence. One objection is that the Registrar had not moved for the determination of C.B.A. C.B.A. Certificate is on the learned lower Court's file in favour of the appellant union. Even if it be said that after 1981 other unions came into existence, the petitioner union would continue to act as C.B.A. till by referendum some other union had been made C.BA. The learned lower Court has not dismissed the same on the ground that the appellant union is not C.B.A. Certain demands are such that they did not require any evidence such as first demand is that work charged employees be made regular and confirmed. Learned lower Court has not given any finding why this demand was not acceptable. At least the question of confirming the regular employees was worth consideration and without giving reasons it could not be disallowed. Demand No. 2 is to the effect that conditions of service of the employees who had been from work charged made regular be announced very soon. It is further prayed that the conditions of service be prepared in the presence of the representatives of the union. This demand prima facie did not require evidence. Demand No. 5 is to the effect that service books of the employees who were transferred from WAPDA to Irrigation en block be got prepared from WAPDA and of employees of Irrigation from Irrigation Department. First part of this demand prima facie appears to be sound. Demand No. 6 is that the period of service in WAPDA of the employees who were transferred from WAPDA be calculated. This demand also prima facie appears to be sound. Likewise there are certain other demands which either require little evidence or were such that they could be considered. It appears that the learned lower Court did not go through the charter of demands and thus did not know the nature of the demands. The impugned decision, therefore, is not a legal decision.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision the case is remanded for re‑decision after affording last opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence in support o[' the demands and the assertions made in the petition brought under section 32(1)(A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and after giving opportunity to the respondents to produce rebuttal and evidence in support of the contentions made in the written statement. A.E./394/Lb. P Appeal accepted.