1977 P I (PLP)
WAQAR SILK FACTORY Versus RAUF
| Citation | 1977 P I (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | WAQAR SILK FACTORY Versus RAUF |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P I (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 P I (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P I (PLP) (WAQAR SILK FACTORY Versus RAUF). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zamirul Hasan for Appellant.
- Choudhry M. Maarif for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
S. 36‑Adjudication by Labour Court --‑ Evidence‑Documents-- Genuineness disputed‑Document neither sent for opinion to Hand writing Expert nor compared by Court itself‑Failure of duty on part of Labour Court‑Matter, in circumstances, remanded by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Zamirul Hasan for Appellant. Choudhry M. Maarif for Respondent. This is an appeal under section 37 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the order of Labour Court ordering re‑instatement on an application made under section 25‑A of the I. R. O.
2. The respondent was working in the appellant's silk factory. He made an application to the Labour Court under section 25‑A on the allegation that he was removed from service on 6thNovember, 1975 without any valid reason and without any order in writing. He, therefore, prayed for re‑instatement with all the benefits.
3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent had remained absent from duty for several days and notices were issued to him to resume his duty but he tailed. However, on 29th December, 1975 he appeared and tendered his resignation in writing. It was also pleaded that be received all his dues.
4. Evidence was recorded. The appellant attempted to produce the various documents, i. e. the Resignation and Payment Receipts during the cross‑examination but the respondent denied the signatures end, therefore, the documents were not admitted. An application was also made by the appellant to send the documents to the handwriting Expert for the comparison of the signatures but no order was passed thereon. In the Labour Court an objection was taken en behalf of the appellant that the factory did not employ twenty or more persons and, therefore, the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance was not applicable. This plea was, rejected.
5. I have considered the evidence on record and I fully agree with the view taken by the Labour Court that at least twenty workers were employed and, therefore, the Standing Orders Ordnance was applicable. The appellant failed to produce any reliable evidence to rebut this evidence.
6. So far the resignation and the payment receipts are concerned, the appellant had produced the documents and a request was also made for sending the documents to the Handwriting Expert but no order wag passed In my view the Labour Court failed in its duty. Not only that the docu ments were to be sent to the Handwriting Expert but the Labour Court could also compare the various signatures and this was not done. Conse quently, the grievance of the appellant in genuine and the impugned order cannot be supported.
7. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and remand the case for sending the documents to the Handwriting Expert at the cost of the appellant. The Presiding Officer shall also compare the signatures to decide the question whether those documents bear the signature of the respondent or not arid then dispose of the matter in accordance with law.