Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAEEDULLAH VS Respondent: ZAFARUDDINHonorable Justice Agha Ali HyderShaikh Wahid Bux,Bashir Awan
1993 P L C 198
1993 P L C 198
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present:- Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
SAEEDULLAH
Versus
Hafiz ZAFARUDDIN and another
Revision Petition No. HYD‑306 of 1991, decided on 3rd September, 1992.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (um of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.54‑‑‑Complaint against employer for non‑compliance with order of Labour Court whereby it had ordered 'reinstatement of workman‑‑‑Employer's defence that he having wound up his business, could not reinstate workman but had paid specified amount to workman by way of settlement‑‑‑Employer's such defence was corroborated by his witnesses and same was accepted by Labour Court who had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of witness and parties‑ ‑In the absence of any material irregularity or illegality, no interference was warranted in the impugned order.
Shaikh Wahid Bux for Appellant.
Bashir Aiwan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1992.
DECISION
The applicant had filed a petition before the Labour Court for reinstatement and he was ordered to be reinstated. The order was honoured only in the breach and he had been constrained to file a complaint under section 54 of the I.R.O.
2. Charge was framed after the statement of the applicant had been recorded and the respondent was examined. His defence was that his factory had been closed and as he had wound up his business, he could not reinstate the applicant and had paid him Rs.20,000 instead by way of settlement.
3. The respondent had produced 2 witnesses by the names of Sharfuddin and Qamaruddin in support of his version. They stated that the respondent had paid Rs.20,000 by way of settlement in their presence and as the differences were satisfactorily patched up, the respondent did not get the receipt by way of acknowledgement.
4. The version as furnished by the respondent passed muster before the Presiding Officer. He had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses and the parties, and chose to believe the respondent. Opinions may differ. But that is not enough. In the absence of any material irregularity or illegality, no interference can be made.
In the circumstances there is no exception to be taken to the impugned order. I will therefore dismiss the application.
A.A./2088/Lb.S Application dismissed.