1988 PLP 693 (PLC(CS))
ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Versus ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING‑ (ARZO‑0) UNION
| Citation | 1988 PLP 693 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Versus ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING‑ (ARZO‑0) UNION |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 693 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 693 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 693 (PLC(CS)) (ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Versus ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING‑ (ARZO‑0) UNION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Bashir Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Evidence Aft (I of 1872), S.67‑‑Evidence, admissibility of‑‑Photocopy of document produced by person neither a, signatory hot scribe thereof‑‑Signatory available but not produced for examination‑‑Labour Court not admitting such photo copy in evidence‑‑Decision of Labour Court was upheld in revision by Appellate Tribunal and plea that provisions of Evidence Act, 1872 not being applicable, document could be proved without formal proof of its execution not accepted.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Bashir Ahmed for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 16th January, 1988. The revision captioned above reports that the order dated 2‑1‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The learned lower Court refused to admit photo stat copy of the Directors' meeting held on 28‑1‑1987 marked as P‑4 on the ground that the witness was neither the author nor the signatory of the document. The report of the committee mark as 'A' was not allowed to be admitted in evidence on the ground that the witness through whom the document was being proved was neither the member of the committee nor had drafted the report.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since Evidence Act is not applicable, the documents could be proved without formal proof of their execution. On the face of it the argument is untenable. In cases which are to be tried summarily, execution of the documents is to be proved and without the proof of the execution they cannot be accepted in evidence. Of course, if no objection has been raised by the other side or the documents have been admitted formal proof may not be necessary. So far as P.4 is concerned, the witness had deposed that its signatory namely Brgd. Fiyyaz Ahmed Khan was working as Director in the Army Welfare. The learned lower Court has rightly observed that since the person who could prove the document was available, he should have been examined. So far as mark 'A' is concerned, the learned lower Court rightly observed that since the witness through whom the document was to be proved was not the member of the committee, which had made the report, he could not prove it. Of course, where the signatory who could prove a document is not available the execution of the document may be proved by some other kind of evidence such as by producing a person who states that he has been working with the author and is in a position to identify his signatures.
4. As a result the revision is dismissed in limine. A.E. /493/Lb.P Revision dismissed.