2006 PLP 391 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHAIR, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-5-2003 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No.2, Karachi whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per memo of appeal, are, that the appellant was a permanent workman in the respondent-Establishment and was an active trade unionist. He was struggling hard for the legal rights of the workers of the respondent-Establishment. The workers formed a trade union and applied for its registration on 2nd August, 2001. However, while the registration was in process, the respondent in order to punish the appellant, verbally dismissed him from service. The appellant after serving a grievance notice, filed a grievance petition in the Sindh Labour Court No.2, Karachi praying therein for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The Respondent filed written statement wherein he denied the existence of the of Ali-Raheem Textile Mills on the address wherein the appellant claimed to he working. Along with the written statement, inter alia, photocopy of a Registration Certificate was filed by the respondent showing that M/s. Halima Industries (Pvt.) Limited was situated on the address shown in the petition.

4. The appellant led evidence in which he corroborated the contents of the grievance petition. However, the respondent neither cross-examined the appellant, nor adduced any evidence in support of his case, Ultimately the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition, hence this appeal.

5. The arguments addressed at the bar have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.

6. It appears that the learned Labour Court while dismissing the grievance petition, has put great emphasis on the photocopy of the Registration Certificate dated 3-5-1995 issued by the Joint Director Labour, West Division, Karachi which was annexed by the respondent along with his written statement which showed that on the address given in the petition M/s. Halima Industries was situated and not M/s. Al-Raheem Textile Mills. It is indeed very strange that the learned Labour Court in the impugned judgment has observed that, "there is no challenge on the part of the petitioner (appellant) that it is forged document", absolutely ignoring the circumstances, that the said Photostat copy of the alleged Registration Certificate was not produced by the respondent through any witness. As such the appellant did not, at all, have any opportunity to controvert and question the genuineness and/or challenge the authenticity of the said document, viz, the Photostat copy of the alleged Registration Certificate. Nevertheless, in his affidavit-in-evidence, the appellant/applicant has categorically stated that the annexures to the written statement were fake and fictitious. Even otherwise, such document having not been brought on record, in accordance with the' law, was inadmissible in evidence, and as such had to be excluded from consideration.

7. As a settled principle of law, the evidence adduced on oath, if not challenged by way of cross-examination, is deemed to have been accepted in toto, by opposite party. In the instant case the respondent chose neither to cross-examine the appellant not adduced any evidence on oath in support of his case to controvert the evidence brought on record by the appellant. In such situation, the trial Court was required to accept the version of the appellant which had gone unrebutted and unchallenged. It may further be added that mere filing of a written statement cannot be treated as evidence. In the circumstances, the written statement and the documents annexed therewith by the respondent having no evidentiary value was of no consequence.

8. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the Labour Court has not followed the law, it proceeded to decide the case in contravention of law and against the evidence on record, as such the B impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and is liable to be reversed.

9. As regards the back-benefits, in the grievance petition the appellant has stated in clear terms that he has remained without any alternate employment after 6-8-2001 despite best efforts. As the respondent utterly failed to rebut such plea of the appellant, such assertion of the appellant went unchallenged and is to be accepted.

10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal of the appellant is allowed. Consequently, the Grievance petition filed by the appellant in the Labour Court stands allowed. The appellant shall be granted back-benefits and compensation equivalent to '15 months' wages. Above are the reasons for short order passed on 9-3-2006. H.B.T./M-60/K Appeal allowed.