1989 PLP 275 (PLC)
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal RIAZ AHMAD Versus SECRETARY IRRIGATION and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 275 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal RIAZ AHMAD |
| Parties | Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal RIAZ AHMAD Versus SECRETARY IRRIGATION and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 275 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 275 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal RIAZ AHMAD.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 275 (PLC) (Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal RIAZ AHMAD Versus SECRETARY IRRIGATION and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Appellant.
- Abdul Hameed Talib for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4) (c), proviso‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑Rule under which action was taken against appellant was neither on record nor shown to Labour Court and as such it could not be said whether they were statutory rules‑‑Respondent employer a department of Government‑‑ Objection was taken by respondent in his written statement that appellant was not a workman but a civil servant but lower Court failing to record any finding on same and affording no opportunity to respondent to produce evidence on point raised in written statement to see if appellant came in any of exceptions contained in definition of `civil servant'‑‑Finding of lower Court set aside and case remanded for redecision after allowing parties to produce evidence.
Judgment & Decree
H.R. Haider for Appellant. Abdul Hameed Talib for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st June, 1987. This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 16‑4‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed.
2. The allegation for which the appellant was dismissed by the respondent was absence without leave for more than ten days. After the submission of reply to the grievance petition about eight adjournments were given to the appellant to produce evidence but no evidence was produced, so much so, that on the last date the appellant refused to come in the witness‑box. To the extent of closing the case of the appellant the order was justified but the impugned order cannot be said to be a decision of the controversy between the parties. In the impugned order neither facts are given nor anything has been said about the enquiry. The respondent did not bring on the record, the record of the enquiry. Needless to say that the record was in the possession of the respondent. In order to support the order of dismissal the production of the enquiry file was necessary. The Rules under which action was taken neither on the record nor shown to the learned lower Court, it therefore, cannot be said whether they are statutory rules. Admittedly Irrigation is a Department of the Government and if the rules are statutory then by virtue of proviso 2(1)(4)(c) Standing Order would not be applicable and then it was to be seen whether enquiry was held in accordance with the statutory rules of service. In the written statement objection was taken that the appellant was not a workman but a civil servant. But the learned lower A Court has not recorded any finding thereon. Opportunity should have been given to the respondent to produce evidence on the points raised in the written statement to see if the appellant came in any of the exceptions contained in the definition of `civil servant'. However, the appellant is liable to pay costs as he took sufficient adjournments and in spite of it did not produce evidence.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision the case is remanded for re‑decision on the condition that the appellant shall pay costs of Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred only). Last opportunity will be a given by the learned lower Court for production of evidence, if conditional costs wanted above are paid. M.Y.H./427/Lb./P Case remanded.