Law: National Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Section: 42, 58

    JUDGMENT-SHEET ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J. Through the instant writ petition, petitioner (Phoenix Armour (Pvt.) Ltd., company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984) impugns orders dated 02.03.2022 and 31.03.2022, passed by the learned Member and Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission-NIRC, Islamabad, respectively whereby its application for summoning of witnesses was dismissed while appeal also met the same fate.  The parties are in contest over Charter of Demands (‘COD’). Initially, petition in terms of Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (Act of 2012) filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed by the learned Member NIRC vide order dated 03.02.2021. In-appeal by the petitioner in terms of Section 58 of the Act of 2012, the matter was remanded to the learned Member NIRC for decision afresh after recording the evidence of the parties and seeking counter reply of the petitioner to the COD. In-post remand proceedings, a witness of the respondent No. 1 was duly cross examined whereafter the petitioner filed application for summoning of the witnesses mentioned therein, which was contested by the respondent No. 1. The learned Member NIRC after hearing the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 02.03.2022. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Full Bench of NIRC but it was also dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2022, hence instant writ petition.  Learned counsel argued that there was no delay in filing application for summoning of witnesses because it was filed on the day of cross examination of first witness of the respondent No. 1; that the witnesses sought to be summoned would be essential for just decision of the controversy; that it is incumbent upon the learned Member NIRC to record evidence regarding petitioner’s ability to pay, who is suffering loss which can only be established through the testimony of a Finance Manager of the Company and the Auditor who audited the accounts. According to the learned counsel, before acceding to the COD of the respondent No. 1, it is incumbent to ascertain the industrial practice in-vogue, petitioner’s ability to pay…