Find a Lawyer

Application No. 784 of 1974, decided on 24th January 1975.

-- S. 36-D read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1903), O. XLI, r. 21-- Ex parte proceedings-Application for re-hearing---Appeal decided ex parte in default-Notice of hearing date duly served and record indicating that applicant had knowledge thereof -Application for re-bearing, in circumstances, rejected.

Syed Zafar Rizvi for Appellant.

Mian Abdul Latif for Respondent.

This is an application under Order XLI, rule 21 of the C. P. C. for rehearing of appeal. The facts of the case are that Ikram-ul-Haq was employed as Fitter in Asiatic Chemical Industries, Lyallpur. The duration of service was four and a half years. He filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his re-instatement on the ground that his termination of services was due to his Union activities. The defence of the employer was that his Sodium Hydro Sulphite plant had been closed and so the Fitters became surplus. He said that applicant was junior most in the service, therefore, he was discharged.

The Junior Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order of retrenchment was male fide. He based his opinion on two grounds, firstly, that the said Plant remained close for one and a half year and during this period the applicant remained employed and no fresh reason was disclosed why be became surplus and secondly the Union had given a notice of demand about a month prior to his termination of service. In this view of the matter, Junior Labour Court ordered re-instatement.

The employer filed an appeal. It was heard ex parte. In a detailed order my learned Predecessor did not agree with any of the grounds given by the Junior Labour Court. The appeal was accepted on 16th November 1974. In these circumstances, the applicant had filed this application for re-hearing of the appeal.

The only question which needs determination is whether the applicant was not served during this appeal. Notice was sent to the applicant. On 5th November 1974, the Process-Server reported that the applicant had gone to Khanpur because his wife was sick. A notice was sent again and the Process Server reported that the applicant refused to accept service. The case was called for hearing on 14th November 1974. On that date the employer gave an affidavit to the effect that the applicant had come to him after the order of the Junior Labour Court that he was shown the said order issue) by the Labour Court and he was informed that the next date of hearing of the appeal was 14th November, 1974. In view of the affidavit, filed A by the employer and the report of the Process Server I stn satisfied that the applicant was duly served. I therefore, refuse to admit the appeal for rehearing. The application is rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.