Principle of Audi alteram partern
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a dispute between the PASTIC Employees Union and the Registrar of Trade Unions, heard on appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in Rawalpindi.
A Labour Court had earlier ordered the cancellation of the union's registration, ruling that PASTIC was not an "industry" and therefore its employees had no right to form a trade union. However, the Labour Court reached this conclusion only after hearing arguments from both sides, without actually inviting or recording any evidence on the crucial question of whether PASTIC qualified as an industry. It also never asked the parties whether they wished to waive their right to present evidence on this point.
The union appealed, arguing that it had wanted to present oral and documentary evidence to prove PASTIC was indeed an industry, but was never given the opportunity to do so, causing it serious prejudice.
The Appellate Tribunal agreed. It held that whether PASTIC was an "industry" was a mixed question of fact and law, and parties have the right to decide for themselves whether to lead evidence on such a point. Wanting to produce evidence on a genuine factual-legal issue cannot be treated as an attempt to unnecessarily delay proceedings. Since the lower court failed to give this basic opportunity, it violated the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem - the right to be heard).
The Tribunal set aside the Labour Court's decision and sent the case back, directing that both parties be given proper opportunity to present evidence before the matter is decided afresh. This
یہ مقدمہ پاسٹک ملازمین یونین اور رجسٹرار ٹریڈ یونینز کے درمیان ایک تنازعہ پر مبنی تھا، جس کی اپیل پنجاب لیبر اپیلیٹ ٹریبونل، راولپنڈی میں سنی گئی۔
اس سے قبل ایک لیبر کورٹ نے یونین کی رجسٹریشن منسوخ کرنے کا حکم دیا تھا اور یہ فیصلہ دیا تھا کہ پاسٹک کوئی "صنعت" نہیں ہے، اس لیے اس کے ملازمین کو ٹریڈ یونین بنانے کا کوئی حق حاصل نہیں۔ تاہم لیبر کورٹ اس نتیجے پر محض فریقین کے دلائل سننے کے بعد پہنچی تھی، اور اس نے اس اہم سوال پر کہ آیا پاسٹک صنعت کے زمرے میں آتا ہے یا نہیں، کوئی شہادت طلب کی اور نہ ہی ریکارڈ کی۔ عدالت نے فریقین سے یہ بھی کبھی دریافت نہیں کیا کہ کیا وہ اس نکتے پر شہادت پیش کرنے کے اپنے حق سے دستبردار ہونا چاہتے ہیں۔
یونین نے اپیل میں یہ موقف اختیار کیا کہ وہ یہ ثابت کرنے کے لیے زبانی اور دستاویزی شہادت پیش کرنا چاہتی تھی کہ پاسٹک درحقیقت ایک صنعت ہے، لی
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
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.