PL J 1983 t*tg. (Labour) -13-
(punjab labour appellate tribunal, lahore) Before : justice (Rro.) muhammad abdul ghafoor khan Loom, PASTIC EMPLOYEES UNION, Islamabad— Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, Rawalpindi— Respondent
Appeal No. D-l 12/80 Punjab, decided on 27-.9-I982.
la&strial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969}-
-- Ss. 36, 37 & 38— Natural Justice— Audi alter am par tern— Principle of-Applicability — Right to produce evidence — Labour Court deciding mixed que?tion of fact and law without inviting evidence or recording statement of pu ie> regarding non-production of evidence on point-— Held : Parties to have ngh' to Jcjide whether evidence to be led on particular point by them or no; — Held further : Case not to be said to pC|mtentionally delayed by mere insistence of appellant to produce evidence on mixed question of fact and law— Industrial Dispute (Pp.13 & 1.4] A
Zla M ahmood Affrza & Mohammad Nawaz, Advocates for Appellant.
Mohammad Bit al. Advocate with Qamar Ahmad, Assistant Director forRespondent. ;
Date of hearing: 27-9-1982.
judgment
fn this appeal the decision dated 22-1-1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby a direction was given to the respondent to cancel . the registration of the appellant Union. The ground on which the cancellation of registration was ordered is that PASTIC is not an industry, therefore, the employees working in it were not entitled to form any union,] The learned lower court did not invite evidence on the point whether]/* PASTIC was a;i industry or not. Oaiy arguments were heard. No state-j menus of the parties were recorded to the effect that they did not want to prod sice any evidence. The.ledrned counsel for the appellant has argued jthat oril and documentary evidence was to be produced to show that PASTIC was an industry and since no opportunity was given, the appellant lias been prejudiced. It is the fight of the parties to decide whether on a particular point they want to lead evidence or not. Whe!her PASTIC is an industry is a mixed question of fact and law if the appellants ishes to produce evidence, it cannot be said that he is intentionally prolonging the pase. If the learned lower court had given an opportunity, the case would not have been delayed.
2. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower coun, remand the case with the direction that after affording propfr opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the case*' be redccided in the light of the material to be brought on 'the record by the parties.
(TQM) Appeal accepted.
(punjab labour appellate tribunal, lahore) Before : justice (Rro.) muhammad abdul ghafoor khan Loom, PASTIC EMPLOYEES UNION, Islamabad— Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, Rawalpindi— Respondent
Appeal No. D-l 12/80 Punjab, decided on 27-.9-I982.
la&strial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969}-
-- Ss. 36, 37 & 38— Natural Justice— Audi alter am par tern— Principle of-Applicability — Right to produce evidence — Labour Court deciding mixed que?tion of fact and law without inviting evidence or recording statement of pu ie> regarding non-production of evidence on point-— Held : Parties to have ngh' to Jcjide whether evidence to be led on particular point by them or no; — Held further : Case not to be said to pC|mtentionally delayed by mere insistence of appellant to produce evidence on mixed question of fact and law— Industrial Dispute (Pp.13 & 1.4] A
Zla M ahmood Affrza & Mohammad Nawaz, Advocates for Appellant.
Mohammad Bit al. Advocate with Qamar Ahmad, Assistant Director forRespondent. ;
Date of hearing: 27-9-1982.
judgment
fn this appeal the decision dated 22-1-1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby a direction was given to the respondent to cancel . the registration of the appellant Union. The ground on which the cancellation of registration was ordered is that PASTIC is not an industry, therefore, the employees working in it were not entitled to form any union,] The learned lower court did not invite evidence on the point whether]/* PASTIC was a;i industry or not. Oaiy arguments were heard. No state-j menus of the parties were recorded to the effect that they did not want to prod sice any evidence. The.ledrned counsel for the appellant has argued jthat oril and documentary evidence was to be produced to show that PASTIC was an industry and since no opportunity was given, the appellant lias been prejudiced. It is the fight of the parties to decide whether on a particular point they want to lead evidence or not. Whe!her PASTIC is an industry is a mixed question of fact and law if the appellants ishes to produce evidence, it cannot be said that he is intentionally prolonging the pase. If the learned lower court had given an opportunity, the case would not have been delayed.
2. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower coun, remand the case with the direction that after affording propfr opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the case*' be redccided in the light of the material to be brought on 'the record by the parties.
(TQM) Appeal accepted.
No comments:
Post a Comment