1984 PLP 618 (PLC(CS))
MUNAWAR MEHMOOD Versus PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION
| Citation | 1984 PLP 618 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUNAWAR MEHMOOD Versus PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 618 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 618 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 618 (PLC(CS)) (MUNAWAR MEHMOOD Versus PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Asghar for Petitioner.
- Asmatullah for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Asghar for Petitioner. Asmatullah for Respondent. Date of hearing : 2nd May, 1982. This revision is directed against the order, dated 21st May, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the miscellaneous application of the petitioner for further evidence was rejected.
2. In the beginning the case was consolidated with another case and both the cases were being heard jointly. My learned predecessor in a case decided that the Labour Courts bad no jurisdiction to consolidate the cases, therefore, the learned lower Court in order to avoid order of remand bifurcated the cases ordering that they would be heard and deci ded separately. When the cases stood consolidated, the proceedings were recorded in the present case. After the cases were bifurcated the learned lower Court invited evidence, with the result that the petitioner was examined as his own witness. Thereafter, the case was adjourn ed on three or four dates for the evidence of the respondent, which had not been produced and the petitioner moved an application for examining two more witnesses, from the rejection of which this revision arises.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had closed his case when evidence was produced in both the cases together. It, therefore, cannot be said that he had not closed the case. If the proceedings had been recorded not in the present case but in the other case, of course after the cases were separated, the parties of the present case would have been entitled to produce evidence in the present case. Anyhow, since the petitioner moved the application when the case was being adjourned for the evidence of the respondent, he bad no right to produce evidence and it was only the discretion of the learned lower Court to allow him further opportunity to produce more evidence. It cannot be said that the learned lower Court while exercising his discretion disallowing further opportunity acted unjudiciously. So there is no scope to interfere in revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. However, the evidence which the parties produced in the present case before this case was separated from the other case can be read and used and it was not necessary to produce evidence afresh. A. E. Revision dismissed.