Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, BAHAWALPUR VS Respondent: ABDUL HAMID
1988 P L C 493
1988 P L C 493
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellant Tribunal
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, BAHAWALPUR and another
Versus
ABDUL HAMID
Appeal No.BR‑360 of 1987, decided on 9th December, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Grievance petition against dismissal for misconduct‑‑Case fixed by Labour Court for evidence of parties‑‑Evidence of petitioner workman completed but employer‑respondent making request for adjournment‑‑Labour Court disallowing adjournment and closing case of respondent and same day accepting grievance petition‑‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal remanding case to Labour Court for re‑decision after last opportunity of evidence to respondent employer in rebuttal of workman's plea.
Muhammad Azam Bhaur for Appellants.
Masooq Ashraf for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th December, 1987.
JUDGMENT
The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 28‑9‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The facts are that the respondent applied for leave and then asked for its extension. Initial leave and extension of leave both were allowed but afterwards extended leave was cancelled on the plea that information had been received that the respondent had gone to Saudi Arabia. After the appellants filed written statement the case was adjourned to 28‑9‑1987 for parties' evidence. The respondent completed his evidence on the said date and on behalf of the appellants request was made for adjournment which was disallowed, the case of the appellants was closed and on the same day the grievance petition was accepted. If the date had been for the evidence of the appellants only, of course there could have been some justification for not allowing adjournment. At least last opportunity should have been afforded to the appellants for producing evidence with or without costs.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that no charge‑sheet and inquiry notice was served nor any inquiry was held. If proper opportunity had been afforded to the appellants to produce evidence and the appellants had failed to show that the respondent was delivered a charge‑sheet, inquiry notice was served and inquiry was held, of course it could be said that the respondent was condemned unheard.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for redecision after affording last opportunity to the appellants to produce evidence in rebuttal.
A. E./475/Lb.P Case remanded.