Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1810 1991 SLD 1810 1991 PLC 42
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1622 of 1989/BWP, decided on 15th January, 1990.
MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Sheikh QADEER AHMAD

VS

Sheikh QADEER AHMAD vs

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S.25-A---Additional evidence, admission of---Petitioner wanted to produce certificate of Income-tax Officer in order to prove that he was neither owner of a certain store nor he had worked there---Petitioner neither obtaining certificate of Income-tax Officer nor tendering it for admission as an additional document when parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence and giving no plausible explanation as to why said certificate was not exhibited--Labour Court held committed no illegality or irregularity by refusing to admit said evidence to fill in lacuna by production of certified copy of same after conclusion of arguments. Muhammad Rashid v. Muhammad Arif and others P L D 1986 Azad J&K 128 ref. Malik Muhammad Aslam for petitioner. ORDER This constitutional petition has been moved against the order of the learned Judge, Punjab Labour Court No.VIII, Bahawalpur, dated 4-11-1989 and that of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore dated 11-12-1989, who had dismissed the application of the petitioner for the production of additional evidence. 2. The brief facts leading to this constitutional petition are that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.3, who was ousted from service. He appears to have filed a grievance petition, which was accepted with back benefits. The matter regarding the back benefits was re-agitated by the petitioner, which was contested by respondent No.3. When the final arguments were concluded and the case was fixed for final order, the petitioner filed a petition for the admission of the certificate of the Income Tax Officer as additional evidence. It was intended for the purpose that the petitioner was not an owner of Mehboob Medical Store and had not worked there. The learned Labour Court and the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed that petition on the ground that it was a belated one and the lacuna in the evidence could not be filled in by producing the impugned certificate. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to section 150 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, in order to show that the Income Tax Officer could not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492