' This is a revision application under section 38(3-a), of the I.R.O., 1969, challenging the order, dated 28-4-1999, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,5, Karachi, on two miscellaneous applications filed under sections 36(2)(A) and 36(2)(B) of I.R.O., 1969, summoning the record and also producing a witnesses Faizi Jafri, said to be a Director of the firm, in grievance application No,452 of 1997, under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. The facts, giving rise to the above revision application, briefly stated are that respondent Farooq Ahmed was employed by the applicant, hereafter referred to as the Bakery, as submitted by Mr. Azmati, learned counsel for the applicant, in 1989. The Bakery had its Head Office as well as several branches at Gulshan-e-lqbal, Nazimabad, Nursery, Defence, and Bahadurabad etc. The respondent/employee was working since 1-4-1994 at Bahadurabad Branch. He was, however, transferred to Nazimabad branch by letter, dated 27-6-1997, where he resumed his duty on 1-7- 1997. His services were, however, terminated by the establishment on 30-9-1997. After giving grievance notice and receiving no satisfactory reply, he filed the grievance petition under section 25-A, of the I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court No,5 at Karachi. After service of notice, the Proprietor of the Bakery filed written statement. The matter was, then, fixed for evidence of the parties. The respondent/employee filed his affidavit-inevidence. He was cross-examined by the establishment/employer. Thereafter, the establishment's Proprietor filed her own affidavit-in- evidence. A date was fixed for her cross-examination, but on the said date, instead of cross- examining the Proprietor, the employee filed two applications under section 36(2)(A) and 36(2)(B) of the I.R.O., 1969. The cross-examination was, therefore, put off and the notices of those applications were issued to the applicant herein. Objections to the said applications, by the counsel of the establishment, were filed, whereafter, the arguments on both the applications were heard and the learned Presiding Officer, by his order, dated 28-4-1999, allowed the said applications, ordering the establishment (1) to produce all the documents, mentioned in the application and (2) to produce witness namely Faizi Jafri in the Court.
3. Mr. Azmati, learned counsel for the applicant submits that affidavitin-evidence was already on the record before the learned Presiding Officer and a date was already fixed for cross-examination of the Proprietor (Mrs. Sultana Jaffery), without cross-examining her, the learned Presiding Officer hestened to proceed with the two applications, filed by the employee. It was, therefore, premature on the part of the learned Presiding Officer to hear those applications without recording the evidence of the Proprietor of Bakery, whose affidavit-in-evidence was already on record.
4. M/s. Turab Ahmed and his Assistant Miss. Rehana, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that necessity of filing the application for summoning the witnesses arose because in the cross-examination of the employee, the genuineness of the identity cards, produced by him, was disputed by the Proprietor and the application for summoning the record of the Head Office as well as the Branches was necessitated as the employee had been working from time to time in several branches.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at some length, I feel that the learned Presiding Officer should have proceeded with the cross-examination of the lady Proprietor and after cross- examination was over, if there was any lacuna, to either call for the record or summon a witness, the occasion could have arisen only thereafter. To leave the main case and move A to the side- track is against the policy of the Labour Laws, which requires the disposal of grievance petitions under section 25-A, of 1969, within seven days as provided in the section itself. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Presiding Officer to record the cross- examination of the establishment's Proprietor and examine any other witness, if so desired to be produced by her. If, after the closure of the evidence of the establishment, the Court comes to the conclusion that it was necessary, in the interest of justice, to order the establishment to produce the record only for the purpose of deciding the applications relevant to main case. The private managements are not supposed to keep the record for in definite period. The relevant point for deciding whether mopeihan twenty employees are working during the preceding year will only be relevant and that may be required to be produced by the establishment during cross-examination which Mr. Azmati agrees to produce during cross-examination.
6. The point whether each branch is a separate establishment is also to be taken into consideration by the learned Presiding Officer before ordering production of the record of the establishment. In the instant case, it appears, prima facie, that twelve months' record will be relevant only in respect of the Nazimabad Branch and the previous branch located in Bahadurabad, where the employee was working. These observations are tentative and should not, in any way, come into way of the learned Presiding Officer, while deciding the cases on merits in accordance with law, if production of further record is necessary,
7. Learned counsel submits that the matter is already fixed for tomorrow before the learned Presiding Officer. Mr. Azmit undertake to produce the lady Proprietor for cross-examination and no inordinate delay should be caused in deciding the matter as the fire is hanging since 1997.
8. Miscellaneous Application No,189 of 1999, in view of the order passed in revision, is dismissed as infructuous.