Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION, MORO VS Respondent: HAMZO
1992 P L C 87
1992 P L C 87
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present: Ahmed Ali U. Quraishi Appellate Tribunal
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAY DIVISION,MORO and another
versus
HAMZO and another
Appeal No. SUK-281 of 1991, decided on 1st June, 1991.
Industrial dispute-
---- Termination of service---Reinstatement---Employer on filing grievance petition of workman against his termination, filed written statement, but did not examine any witness to rebut evidence of workman to the effect that order of termination was illegal---Labour Court thus had rightly declined to consider written statement as evidence---Evidence of workman with respect to illegal termination of his service having remained unrebutted, order of Labour Court reinstating workman could not be interfered with.
Abdul Sattar Khatri for Appellants.
Date of hearing: 1st June, 1991.
DECISION
This is an appeal against the order dated 13-5-1991 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No.VII at Sukkur whereby the grievance petition filed by respondent No.l was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was Baildar with the appellant, when his services were terminated on 25-8-1990. After serving grievance notice upon the appellant the respondent filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. The appellant riled written statement before the learned Labour Court but did not examine any witness to rebut evidence of respondent to the effect that the order of removal was illegal. The learned Labour Court has declined to consider the written statement as evidence. In this respect, he gets support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court A in the case reported in PLD 1972 SC 25. As the evidence of the respondent No.l with respect to the illegal termination of his service remained unrebutted, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
3. Mr. Abdul Sattar Khatri has submitted that the appellant could not properly contest grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, as in spite of the reference to the D.G.P. Sukkur, no proper arrangement was made for defence of the grievance petition at Sukkur. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the evidence of respondent No.l remains unrebutted and the respondent who is a poor workman cannot be made to suffer because of lapse or negligence on the part of any Government functionary.
4. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./1942/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.