LABOUR UNION Versus MESSRS MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD.

ORDER

1. This is the application made on behalf of the respondent praying that they may be permitted to produce document dated Ist February 1975 received by them on 6-2-1975 from Federal Government in reply to their letter dated 13th November, 1974 with regard to splitting up of the Workers Participation Fund as according to them the said letter was received by them after they had adduced their evidence and closed their side.

2. The application was opposed by other side on two-fold grounds-Firstly that the letter issued by the Government of Pakistan Labour and Local Bodies Division on 1st February, 1975 could not possibly be received by respondent as late as 8-2-1971 therefore according to them this letter could have easily been produced by them well right in time.

3. The other objection raised on behalf of the applicant is that the said letter is not said to have been issued by the competent authority within the provisions of Company's Profit (Workers' Participation Fund) Act, 1968.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties. The document sought to be produced by respondent is purported to be a Government letter therefore, its genuineness could not be challenged unless proved to be otherwise. There appears to be no earthly reason why the respondent could not produce the document at the proper time if it was in their possession and received earlier, therefore without any cogent and confirmatory evidence no adverse inference could possibly be drawn at this stage especially when the respondents have stated in their Reply Statement that they had already taken up this matter with the Federal Government. Therefore the production of this document at this stage could not be deemed to be an afterthought in, any manner whatsoever. The matter could not be allowed to be decided on presumption, surmises and conjectures.

5. So far as the legal propriety of the letter is concerned the same would decided at the time of final argument when the said document is exhibited through the witness and after the witness is subjected to cross-examination.

6. In order to give finality to the case it would be in the interest of justice that all the points at dispute be heard and decided together. Therefore the dispensation of justice required that the prayer of the respondent be granted irrespective of tie merits of document sought to be produced by` them. Besides under section 15 of the West Pakistan industrial Disputes Rules, 1960, the Court may accept, admit or call for evidence at any stage of the proceedings before it and in such manner as it may think fit.

7. In the result I allow the application as prayed.