1995 PLP 359 (PLC)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HALA TUBEWELL DIVISION and another Versus ABDUL SATTAR
| Citation | 1995 PLP 359 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HALA TUBEWELL DIVISION and another Versus ABDUL SATTAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 359 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 359 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 359 (PLC) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HALA TUBEWELL DIVISION and another Versus ABDUL SATTAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafiq Ahmed (A.G.P.) for Appellants.
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 1995.
- 4. Obviously the decision of the Labour Court on the grievance application is based on scanty evidence and the other side has not been heard. The learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that there was no proof of service of notice on the Project Director and the Executive Engineer. Since the facts of the case gleaned from the decision and orders of Labour Court and the orders themselves, are not very clear I feel that this is a fit case for fresh trial on merits. The decision and orders of Labour Court are accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Labour Court at Hyderabad for recording evidence afresh and deciding the grievance petition on merits after hearing both the parties.
Headnotes / Summary
Grievance petition‑‑‑Ex parte decision‑‑‑Setting aside of‑‑‑Grievance petition filed by employee in Labour Court at place 'S' was returned to be filed in proper Court which was at place `H'‑‑‑Petition was admitted in Court `H' and notices were issued to employers‑‑‑Notices were presumed ‑ to have reached the addressees despite no evidence of service of those notices was available and due to non‑appearance of employers, matter was proceeded ex parte and after recording evidence of employee, petition filed by him was decided ex parte against employers‑‑‑Decision of Court on grievance petition of employee was based on scanty evidence and other side had not been heard‑‑‑Ex parte decision of Labour Court was set aside and case was remanded to decide afresh on merits after recording evidence.
Judgment & Decree
Rafiq Ahmed (A.G.P.) for Appellants. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th February, 1995. This appeal is directed against the order of Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad allowing a grievance petition of the respondent for payment of wages from 2‑12‑1989 onwards.
2. The respondent was appointed as Tubewell Chowkidar on regular basis with effect from 2‑12‑1989 in BPS‑
1. He had submitted his Medical Fitness Certificate also but he was not being paid his wages. Ultimately on 1‑4‑1990 a fresh appointment order was issued but his service from 2‑12‑1989 to 1‑4‑1990 was not recognised. He then sent his grievance notice on 7‑8‑1990 and ultimately filed his petition under section 25‑A of I.R.O. before the Labour Court at Sukkur on 22‑2‑1990. On 18‑3‑1990 the petition was. returned to the respondent for being filed in the proper Court which was then presented to Labour Court at Hyderabad on 20‑3‑1990. It was admitted and notices were issued to both the appellants (employers). There is no evidence of service of these notices afresh though the letters must have been sent by post and it was presumed that the letters had reached the addressees. The matter was proceeded with ex parte and the evidence produced by the respondent was recorded. The learned Labour Court passed the order issuing directions to the appellants for payment of wages and continuance of service of the respondent.
3. In this case also an application was moved by the appellants before the Labour Court after decision for setting aside the ex parte order. This application was rejected because it was admitted that the non‑attendance was due to a mistake of fact. The learned Labour Court believed that the present appellants had knowledge of pendency of the proceedings in Court and non- attendance had not been explained. The present appeal was then filed on 6‑1‑1992 against the decision dated 11‑7‑1991 and the order dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte order on 8‑12‑1991.
4. Obviously the decision of the Labour Court on the grievance application is based on scanty evidence and the other side has not been heard. The learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that there was no proof of service of notice on the Project Director and the Executive Engineer. Since the facts of the case gleaned from the decision and orders of Labour Court and the orders themselves, are not very clear I feel that this is a fit case for fresh trial on merits. The decision and orders of Labour Court are accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Labour Court at Hyderabad for recording evidence afresh and deciding the grievance petition on merits after hearing both the parties. H.B.T./2419/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.