P L D 1975 Lahore 44 (PLP)

M. A. Khadim for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.

1. Muhammad Ashraf Steno-Typist for Respondent No.

2. Raja Asghar with Kh. Ahmad Tariq Rahim for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing : 6th May 1974. This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) against the order dated 23rd of October 1973; whereby Rai Abdul Razzaq, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lyallpur dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by means of a short order, relevant portion of which reads as follows "Now there remains one appellant only Mr. Abdul Qadir by name. So far his case is concerned I have perused the impugned order on file of the lower Court. He is not represented by anybody but has been heard at length. He has not been able to convince me and I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of Junior Labour Court. His appeal is dismissed on merits."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure `H' which is a copy of the grounds of appeal which bad been filed by his client before the Punjab Labour Court. He submits that in that appeal various factual, and legal pleas had been raised which the impugned order shows, have not been attended to. The contention seems to have merit. A perusal of the order of the learned Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court No. 3 Lyallpur shows that he had heard the petitioner at length which means that various grounds had been raised before him and the summary disposal in the manner of observing that he was not convinced or that he did not .see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Junior Labour Court; was not a lawful disposal of the appeal. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others P L D 1970 S C 173 that an order disposing of a matter in a summary manner without giving any reasons or resolving points of controversy between the parties by simply observing that "application rejected as there is no substance in it'' is not a lawful order. It is, at this stage, instructive to reproduce a short passage from the Supreme Court judgment which reads as follows :- "If a summary order of rejection can be made in such terms, there is no reason why a similar order of acceptance saying "there is con siderable substance in the petition which is accepted", should not be equally blessed. This will reduce the whole judicial process to authoritarian decrees without the need for logic and reasoning which have always been the traditional pillars of judicial pronouncements investing them with their primary excellence of propriety any judicial balance. Litigants who bring their disputes to the law Courts with the incidental hardship and expenses involved do expect a patient and a judicious treatment of their cases and their determination by proper orders. A judicial order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has applied its mind to the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication. The ultimate result may be reached by a laborious effort, but if the final order does not bear an imprint of that effort and on the contrary discloses arbitrariness of thought and action, the feeling with its painful results, that justice has neither been done nor seems to have been done is inescapable. When the order of a lower Court contains no reasons, the appellate Court is deprived of the benefit of the views of the lower Court and is unable to appreciate the processes by which the decision has been reached."

3. Respectfully following the aforesaid law, I hereby declare the order of the learned Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court No. 3 as to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition is accepted, the aforesaid order is quashed and the case is sent back to the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labaur Court No. 3, Lyallpur for fresh decision in accordance with law. Costs shall be borne by respondent No.

1. S. A. H. Petition accepted.