PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER Versus MUNIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER
A settlement was executed between the Management of Packages Limited and the Packages Workers' Union, Lahore on 3rd February 1972, in the presence of Mr. Mahmood the then Secretary Labour, Raja Iftikhar Ullah the then Zonal Director, Labour Welfare and Mr. Hanif Ramay the then M. P. A. According to the terms of the settlement tine Management had agreed to take back in employment all the workers who were dismissed/discharged or terminated during the year 1969. Clause 9 of the settlement however provided that all workers were entitled to employment because of this settlement and would report for duty from 7th February to 12th February 1972 (both days inclusive). No worker would he given employment who failed to report for duty after 12th February, 1972.
2. Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Younas respondents were also workers employed in the Packages Limited. They were dismissed from service in October, 1969. They were thus covered by the aforesaid settlement for the purposes of being taken back to duty. It is however noteworthy that in the year 1971 they joined the Civil Armed Forces i. e. West Pakistan Rangers and were deputed to serve in East Pakistan. Unfor tunately they became prisoners of war as a result of Indo-Pak war and remained as prisoners of war in the custody of Indian Authorities for more than two years. They were repatriated in Pakistan on 25-3-1974. Thereafter they were discharged from service. They approached the appellant for employment on the basis of their aforesaid settlement but after some reluctance the appellant finally refused to take them back into service.
3. Consequently the respondents filed two separate applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance seeking their re-employment with consequential benefits.
4. Their applications were resisted by the appellants who raised pleas to the effect that no right guaranteed or secured to the respondent by any law, award or settlement has been violated. They had no cause of action and that the applications were time-barred. It is noteworthy that before filing the applications under section 25-A before the Junior Labour Court both the respondents served grievance notices on the appellant. The learned lower Court in case of Munir Ahmed recorded his statement and also received in evidence the relevant documentary evidence. Both these cases were disposed of by one and the same order which has been recorded in the case of Munir Ahmed. The learned lower Court ultimately accepted the petitions of the respondents-with back benefits. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the aforesaid order dated 25-6-75 of the Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lahore. It has been mainly urged in the memo. of appeal that the evidence of the appellants has not been recorded and the case has been decided in a premature manner.
5. Procedure to be observed by a Junior Labour Court while dis posing of applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is provided in section 36-B (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It provides that a Junior Labour Court shall after holding such enquiry as it may deem fit, pass an order, in writing, and announce it within 7 days from the date the matter is brought before it. This shows that the law requires as much enquiry to be conducted by the Junior A Labour Court as it may deem fit. It is not obligatory for that Court to frame issues and to record evidence to be produced by both the parties.
6. In the present ease the settlement has been produced and exhibited. Discharge certificate of the respondent has also been produced and exhibited. Grievance notice has also been produced and exhibited. Statement of one of the respondents has also been recorded.
7. From this verbal and documentary evidence it was sufficiently established that the respondents were dismissed in the year 1969. They were entitled to be re-instated according to the settlement. They were Prisoners of War when they were to report for duty according to settlement. It was therefore, not humanly possible for them to report for duty during those days. Soon after their repatriation from India and after they were discharged from West Pakistan Rangers, they reported for duty. They were thus legally entitled to be taken back on duty in accordance with the terms of settlement.
8. In the light of these circumstances no further enquiry was required to be made by the learned lower Court.
9. In the light of what has been said above we find no infirmity with the impugned order. There is thus no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.