1989 PLP 346 (PLC)

‑‑‑Art. 72‑‑Documentary evidence‑‑Document could be put in cross-examination to a witness who had executed and issued same‑‑Respondent not shown to have signed documents in question, held, could not be confronted with same. (d) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 84‑‑Public documents‑‑Admissibility‑‑Public documents issued by a department of Government in discharge of duties, held, were admissible in evidence, without proof. Nazir Hussain for Appellants. H.R. Haider for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th January, 1987. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 23‑7‑1986 recorded 6y the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he .gas directed to be given the salary of the post of sub‑divisional clerk right from the date he was made to work on the said post upto the date he had been working on it

2. Cross‑objections have been raised on behalf of the respondent, which are to the effect that the appeal is time‑barred, that no proper appeal is before this Court, inasmuch as it is not signed by the‑appellants and the lawyer who has signed it had not been authorised in that behalf.

3. Vide order, copy of which is Exh.P‑1, the appellant, who at that time was assistant clerk, was ordered to work as sub‑divisional clerk in temporary stopgap arrangement in his own pay scale. Alongwith him three other persons namely Abdul Rashid, Abdul Salam and Bashir Ahmad also were ordered to work as such. The respondent claims that he should be given the scale of the post the work of which was being taken from him. The respondent also contended that to some other clerks the scale of the post on which they were working like him had been allowed but a discriminatory treatment was meted out to him. The case of the appellants is that the scale No. 6 was given to those clerks who had been recommended by the departmental promotion committee and that since the respondent was not so promoted, he was not entitled to the said scale. The documents Exhs. P‑6 to P‑10 show that scale No. 6 was allowed to others for the reason that they had been recommended by the departmental promotion committee. Exhs. R‑2 to R‑7 were produced by the appellants to rebut the assertion made by the respondent that the sub‑divisional clerks in some other branches of the appellants, who had been made to work as sub‑divisional clerk in their own pay scale, were allowed the pay scales of the posts on which they were working. Exh.R‑2 was sent by the Director, Land Reclamation, Punjab, Lahore; Exh.R‑3 by Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Mughalpura, Lahore; Exh.R‑4 by Superintending Engineer, Lahore Drainage Circle, Lahore; Exh.R‑5 by Superintending Engineer, Link Circle, Lahore; Exh.R‑6 by Superintending Engineer, Depalpur Circle, and Exh.R‑7 by Superintending Engineer, Scarp‑IV, Lahore. These documents arc to the effect that the scale of sub‑divisional clerk was allowed only to those junior clerks who had passed the prescribed departmental examination of sub‑divisional clerk and that the scale of the said post was not being allowed to any clerk who had not passed. the said examination. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondent to documents Exhs.R‑2 to R‑7 is that they were not put to the respondent in cross‑examination. The objection is without force. Only that document is to be put to a witness who had executed or issued it. Since these documents do not bear the signatures of the respondent, it was not necessary to confront him with them. No objection was A raised at the time they were exhibited in evidence to the effect that they were not admissible in evidence without formal proof. If such an objection had been raised, the author or some other person who was familiar with the signatures of the author may have been examined by the appellants. Even otherwise the documents being public documents issued by a department of the Government, in discharge of duties are admissible in evidence without formal proof. The learned counsel; for the respondent has made reference to documents Exhs. P‑6 to P‑8 in support of his case. But they rather go against his case. 1t is mentioned therein that on promotion the clerks mentioned therein were allowed the scale of the post of sub -divisional clerk. So, on merits the appellants have a good case. On technical grounds the appeal fails. The memo of appeal is not signed by the appellants but bears the signatures of the lawyer. The lawyer who signed it was not authorised in this behalf. He was authorised only to present the appeal. According to section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, only party aggrieved can prefer an appeal. In the present case the party aggrieved could be the Executive Engineer or the Superintending Engineer but it cannot be said that the learned counsel for the appellants was an aggrieved party. In civil cases the matter is different rent because there an attorney duly authorised can sign the memo of appeal. In the presence of the express provision in section 37 that only an aggrieved party can prefer an appeal, the memo of appeal not signed by the appellants is not a proper appeal. Since the period for preferring appeal has now expired a valuable right by lapse of time has accrued to the respondent which cannot be refused by allowing the appellants to now sign the memo of appeal nor any such application in this respect has been made uptil now.

5. However, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is time‑barred. At the time the period meant R for preferring the appeal had expired, this Court was on summer vacation, therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal is time‑barred.

6. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal being incompetent and improper, is rejected. M.Y.H/428/Lb.P. Appeal dismissed.