1990 PLP 488 (PLC)

M.A.Hameed Awan for Appellant. Mian Muhammad Saleem for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th July, 1987. The four appeals captioned above emerge from the orders dated 9‑5‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for‑their reinstatement in service were dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the services of the appellants were terminated by the respondent on the plea of reorganisation on the ground that income had decreased due to load‑shedding. The appellants had applied in their respective cases on 12‑11‑1985 for the production of certain documents detailed in the misc. petitions. The learned lower Court vide its order dated 5‑12‑1985 allowed the balance sheets only mentioned in para No.14 of the said petition and without giving any reason disallowed the remaining documents mentioned in paragraphs Nos. 1 to

13. Since no reason was given, the order is arbitrary. The learned lower Court has not said that the remaining documents were not relevant to the case. It appears that at least documents mentioned in paragraphs Nos 1 to 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 were prima facie relevant to the case. In reply to the said miscellaneous petition the respondent did not contend that the documents were not in existence, which means that the documents are available. It appears necessary that the learned lower Court should ‑re‑consider the misc. petition dated 12‑11‑1985 and allow the production of documents which are proved to be relevant to the case. Before deciding the said application the learned lower Court may ask the appellants to give the dates of documents mentioned in the paragraphs 6 and 7 which are needed by the appellants so that the court may be able to decide whether they are relevant to the point. In order to save the respondent from producing irrelevant documents too it is necessary that the appellants should give the period pertaining to which documents mentioned in the paragraphs 6 and 7 are needed. After the said application is decided and the documents which are found by the learned lower Court to be relevant are produced, the grievance petitions should be decided afresh. As the impugned decisions are being set aside it would be the discretion of the learned lower Court to allow the parties to produce any further evidence oral or documentary.

3. As a result the captioned appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions the cases are remanded for re‑decision in the light of the observations made above. A.E./380/Lb.P Appeals accepted.