2006 PLP 448 (PLC)
ALLIED BANK LTD through Attorneys Versus ASIF AZIZ MEMON
| Citation | 2006 PLP 448 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam, J |
| Parties | ALLIED BANK LTD through Attorneys Versus ASIF AZIZ MEMON |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (X'CI of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 448 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (X'CI of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 448 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Mushir Alam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 448 (PLC) (ALLIED BANK LTD through Attorneys Versus ASIF AZIZ MEMON). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Soulat Hussain Rizvi Syed for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(xxx), 46 & 48(3)
Status of workman, determination of
Maintainability of grievance petition by employee was challenged by employer on the ground that employee who was performing his duty as Manager administering affairs of Branch of the Bank, his duty was that of a supervisory and administrative nature and did not fall within the ambit of "workman"
When employee was confronted in order to substantiate claim raised by the employers, he was confronted with certain documents pertaining to the nature of his job
Labour Court disallowed production of such documents on the ground that said documents were not filed along with reply statement by employer
Nature of job of employee being in controversy, in case employer was not allowed to confront witness with said documents, he would not be able to prove its case in evidence and employer would have no opportunity to confront witness of said documents
Labour Court having disallowed the documents at the stage of cross-examination, said order of the Labour Court, could not be sustained
Documents confronted to a witness, could be taken on record and objection as to production thereof could be considered at trial. Jawaid Asghar Awan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHIR ALAM, J
Short controversy raised in this revision application is that, the applicant in witness box was not allowed to be confronted with certain documents. Brief facts leading to the present revision appears to be that the respondent filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court which grievance petition was challenged by the applicant on the ground inter alia that the respondent is not performing manual or clerical job but is performing his duty as Manager administering the affairs of the Branch and his duty is that of a supervisory and administrative nature does not fall within the ambit of workman within the contemplation of I.R.O. Such facts were pleaded in detail in the written statement. When the respondent stepped into the witness box such position was confronted in order to substantiate the claim raised in defence. The respondent was confronted with certain documents pertaining to the nature of his job. Learned trial Court disallowed production of such documents on the ground inter alia that, such documents were not filed along with the reply statement. It may be observed that the rule of pleading is contained in Order VI Rule 2 C.P.C. which provides that the material facts are to be pleaded in concise manner on which the party relies for his claim of defence. It is on the basis of pleading evidence is led. There is no dispute that facts were so pleaded. Nature of job of the Respondent No.2 is in controversy. In case the applicant are notallowed to confront the witness with documents they may not be able to prove their case in evidence and as they will have no opportunity to confront the witness of the document they may seek to rely in their evidence. The trial Court disallowing the document at the stage of cross-examination, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is always advisable that the documents confronted to a witness may be taken on record, objection as to production thereto may be recorded to be considered at trial. In this view of the matter Revision is allowed to the extent trial Court to allow the defendant to be confronted with his service record relating to job description. LRA stands disposed of along with the pending applications. H.B.T./A-60/K Revision allowed.