Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ
1988 P L C 230
1988 P L C 230
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,
Appellate Tribunal
LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
versus
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ
Appeal No. LHR‑551 of 1986, decided on 26th January, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. IX, R.6‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Adjudication of‑ Labour Court has to go into all facts of case‑‑Where there was no material on record case could be said to have been decided after considering all facts‑‑Reply not filed by respondent‑‑Case adjourned on payment of cost‑‑Cost not paid‑‑Labour Court refusing to accept reply and closing case of respondent and also accepting grievance petition without recording any evidence‑‑Held: (i) Labour Court could have insisted upon payment of cost but could not refuse to entertain reply to grievance petition. (ii) Provisions of O.IX, R.6, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were not applicable, and (iii) respondent having not been proceeded ex parte, grievance petition could not be accepted without recording evidence in support of the case‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside in appeal by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision on merits after opportunity to respondent /employer to file written statement in reply to grievance petition.
Muhammad Amin Lone for Appellant.
Khalid Farooq for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th January, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 22‑7‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby closing the case of the appellant, the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted without recording any evidence.
2. On 3‑6‑1986 the case was adjourned to 18‑6‑1986 for reply to the grievance petition. No reply was filed, therefore, the case was further adjourned to 3‑7‑1986 on payment of Rs.200 as cost. No cost was paid nor reply was filed, therefore, the case was adjourned to 22‑7‑1986 for filing reply and for payment of cost already imposed. On the date on which the impugned order was passed, the cost was not paid, therefore, the reply to the grievance petition was not accepted and closing the case of the appellant, the grievance petition was accepted. The learned lower Court could have insisted upon the payment of cost but could not refuse to entertain the reply to the grievance petition. The order is defective for this reason also that although the case of the appellant was closed, yet without recording any evidence in support of the grievance petition, the said petition was accepted. Even under Order IX, rule 6, C.P.C., where the respondent has been proceeded against ex parte, the suit can be decreed without recording evidence but in the present case firstly C P.C. was not applicable and secondly since the appellant had not become absent, nor was proceeded ex parte, the grievance petition could not be accepted without recording evidence in support of the case. According to section 25‑A (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Labour Courts have to go into all the facts of the case. Where there is no material on the record, it cannot be said that the case has been decided after considering all the facts of the case.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision on merits after allowing the appellant to file written statement, and parties have produced evidence, if any.
A.E. /295/Lb.P
Appeal accepted.