Find a Lawyer

Petition (Register No. 339), decided on 6th August 1976.

----S. 25‑A read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 4-- Dismissal for default‑Restoration of proceedings‑Sickness certificate indicating sickness on date subsequent to date of hearing‑No explana tion for absence on date of hearing‑Plea that counsel was unable to attend‑No affidavit of counsel produced‑Prayer for restoration, in circumstances, held, groundless and rejected.

Petitioner in person.

Ch. Imtiaz Ahmed for Respondent.

Muhammad Qasim brought an application for the restoration of his petition of re‑instatement in the former Junior Labour Court, Rahimyar Khan, on 6‑12‑75. The petition was dismissed in default of his appearance on 24‑10‑75. He enclosed a medical certificate of his sickness alongwith the application for restoration according to which he was suffering from Dysentery on 24‑11‑75 without mentioning anything about his physical position on 24‑10‑75 when his petition was dismissed. The learned Pres iding officer ref the junior labour Court after hearing the parties on the said application restored the petition vide his order dated 30‑1‑76 when his Court bad become defunctus officio and all the cases pending in that Court stood automatically transferred to this Court under the provision of Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975. As the case came up for hearing on merits this Court formed the view that the order of restoration passed by the former Junior Labour Court on 30‑1‑76 could not be sustained as having been passed without jurisdiction on 30‑1‑76. The original applica tion was deemed to have been finally disposed of against the petitioner. The petitioner went in appeal against this order dated 13‑4‑76 and the learned Punjab Labour Appellate tribunal in its judgement dated 23‑6‑76 remanded the Case with the direction that the application for restoration was still deemed to be pending in this Court by virtue of the provisions of the Labour Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1975, and the same yet needed to be decided.

I have heard the parties on the application for restoration dated 6-12‑75 which is apparently time‑barred inasmuch as the petition was dismissed in default of the petitioner's appearance on 24‑10‑75. The petitioner did not file any separate application for the condonation of delay under section 65(b) of the I. R. O.. 1969 read with section 5 of the limitation Act. However, he enclosed a medical certificate with his application issued by an officer incharge of the Social Security dispensary. According to this certificate the petitioner was sick on 24‑11‑75 and not on 24‑10‑75. The petitioner has not pleaded any accidental error in regard to the date of sickness given in the medical certificate relied upon by him. In such situation the medical certificate does not help him in the plea of sickness. He mentioned in the application for restoration that he had engaged a counsel who also could not be able to attend the Court in time. But no affidavit was enclosed with the application by his counsel. Under the circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his application for restoration. It is, therefore, dismissed for having no substance and also as being time‑barred. The file may be consigned.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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