Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus GARISON ENGINEER (ARMY), OKARA CANTT
This matter involves eleven consolidated appeals arising from a lower court decision holding that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable, thereby stripping the Labour Court of jurisdiction. The core legal question is whether a judgment announced nearly two months after hearing arguments, without a rehearing, is sustainable when the points involved are important and controversial. The court held that due to the significant delay and the complexity of the case, the presiding officer could not be presumed to have fresh recollection of the arguments, rendering the decision not sustainable. The court's final order accepted the appeals, set aside the impugned decision, and remanded the cases to the lower court with the direction to rehear the arguments and re-decide the matters expeditiously. The key principle laid down is that in important and controversial cases, where a considerable period elapses between the hearing of arguments and the announcement of the judgment, the court should rehear the arguments to ensure a fair and proper adjudication.
- Whether a delay in announcing judgment after hearing arguments vitiates the decision in complex cases?
- Is a rehearing of arguments required when a significant period passes between the hearing and the announcement of judgment?
- Can the Labour Court exercise jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against a military engineering service establishment?
Since the eleven appeals captioned above involve same questions of fact and law, they'are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2.The learned lower Court has held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable and thus the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the arguments of the parties were heard by the learned lower Court on 8-10-1989 but the judgment was announced on 29-11-1989 after one month and twenty-one days. He has argued that on account of the delay the impugned decision is not sustainable. It cannot be expected from a judicial officer that he would remember the arguments of the parties for more than one month. The points involved in the cases were very important and controvertial. Since the learned Presiding Officer had not been able to decide the cases within one month of hearing the arguments probably due to rush of work, he should have reheard the arguments before preparing and announcing the final orders. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to cite any ruling to the effect that in spite of such a defect the judgment cannot be challenged. There are many rulings of various High Courts on the point, although at present I am not in a position to cite them. In cases of simple nature it may be presumed that the Court deciding the case remembered the arguments and legal and factual facts of the case but in a case like the one in hand it is difficult to say that the arguments were fresh in the mind of the learned Presiding Officer.
3.As a result of the observations made above, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the cases arc remanded with the direction that after re-hearing the arguments the cases be redecided. The learned lower Court shall try to decide the cases soon, because only the arguments are to be reheard.
M.Y.H./729/Lb.P Case remanded.
Judges on this bench
- Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi1,887 judgments