DECISION The record and proceedings in Application No. 195 of 1981, under section 25-A, I.R.O. (Muhammad Ramzaa v. Aspro-Nicholas (Pakistan) Ltd. Pending before the learned Third Labour Court was requisitioned by this Tribunal in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision vested in it under section 38 (3-a) for the purposes of examining the legality, correct--ness and propriety of the following order made by the learned Third Labour Court on 3-4-1982 on the application of the learned counsel for the workman. Muhammad Ramzan, for summoning the Managing Director of the Aspro-Nicholas (Pakistan) Ltd., as a witness-:--
The applicant's contention is that the Managing Director of the res--pondent had himself asked him to 'tender apology for giving him minor punishment. The contention, if proved, will definitely entitle him for leniency. Issue summon to the Managing Director as appli--cants witness. Hg. : 8-4- 1982.
Sd/- 3-4-1982."
2. Section 36, I.R.O--- empowers a Labour Court to summon any person and examine him on oath but this power must be exercised in accordance with the established principle that a witness is, to be summoned and examined only if his evidence is relevant for the purposes of the matter pending before the Court or he is required to produce a document which is relevant or material for the purposes of such a matter. The reasons given by the learned Labour Court for summoning the witness is that it is claimed that he had held out an assurance to the workman that if he apologises would be leniently dealt with. As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v Channan Khan and others (Civil Appeal No. K-136 of 1976), decided on 26-1-1980.
"It is for the employer to assess as to what punishment should be awarded for misconduct under the provision of the Statute" ; and "if the employer chooses to award dismissal, the Labour Court can--not sit in judgment over it and substitute it with a lenient punish--ment."
3. For the reasons stated above, I would set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court, dated 3-4-1982, summoning the Managin Director of Aspro-Nicholas but would observe that it will still be open t the workman, Muhammad Ramzan, or his learned counsel, to make proper application for summoning of the witness and if the Court is satisfi--ed that evidence of witness is relevant or necessary, it can issue the requi--site process for his attendance and examination.