Pakistan Case LawWAQAR SILK FACTORY Versus RAUF
This is an appeal under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance filed against the order of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of the respondent pursuant to an application under Section 25-A of the same Ordinance. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent voluntarily resigned and received his dues, and whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance applied based on the number of employees. The appellate tribunal held that the Labour Court erred by failing to send the disputed resignation and payment receipts to a handwriting expert or compare the signatures itself, while affirming that the Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable as the employer failed to rebut evidence that at least twenty workers were employed. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the Labour Court for sending the documents to a handwriting expert at the appellant's cost and for a fresh decision after signature comparison. The key principle laid down is that a Labour Court must properly examine disputed documents, including obtaining expert opinion or comparing signatures, when the execution of a resignation or receipt is denied.
- Whether the Labour Court is bound to have disputed signatures on a resignation and payment receipts examined by a handwriting expert when execution is denied?
- Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance apply to a factory employing twenty or more persons?
- Can an appellate tribunal remand a case to the Labour Court for failure to properly evaluate disputed documentary evidence?
- Section 37(3), Industrial Relations Ordinance
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance
- West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance
DECISION
This is an appeal under section 37 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the order of Labour Court ordering re‑instatement on an application made under section 25‑A of the I. R. O.
2.The respondent was working in the appellant's silk factory. He made an application to the Labour Court under section 25‑A on the allegation that he was removed from service on 6 th November, 1975 without any valid reason and without any order in writing. He, therefore, prayed for re‑instatement with all the benefits.
3.The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent had remained absent from duty for several days and notices were issued to him to resume his duty but he tailed. However, on 29th December, 1975 he appeared and tendered his resignation in writing. It was also pleaded that be received all his dues.
4.Evidence was recorded. The appellant attempted to produce the various documents, i. e. the Resignation and Payment Receipts during the cross‑examination but the respondent denied the signatures end, therefore, the documents were not admitted. An application was also made by the appellant to send the documents to the handwriting Expert for the comparison of the signatures but no order was passed thereon. In the Labour Court an objection was taken en behalf of the appellant that the factory did not employ twenty or more persons and, therefore, the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance was not applicable. This plea was, rejected.
5.I have considered the evidence on record and I fully agree with the view taken by the Labour Court that at least twenty workers were employed and, therefore, the Standing Orders Ordnance was applicable. The appellant failed to produce any reliable evidence to rebut this evidence.
6.So far the resignation and the payment receipts are concerned, the appellant had produced the documents and a request was also made for sending the documents to the Handwriting Expert but no order wag passed In my view the Labour Court failed in its duty. Not only that the docu ments were to be sent to the Handwriting Expert but the Labour Court could also compare the various signatures and this was not done. Conse quently, the grievance of the appellant in genuine and the impugned order cannot be supported.
7.In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and remand the case for sending the documents to the Handwriting Expert at the cost of the appellant. The Presiding Officer shall also compare the signatures to decide the question whether those documents bear the signature of the respondent or not arid then dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
Judges on this bench
- Ghulam Rasool Shaikh100 judgments