Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑719 of 1981, heard on 21st January, 1982.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 37 & 38(3‑a)‑Grievance petition dismissed by Labour Court due to non‑appearance of petitioner or his represen tative‑Restoration application also dismissed‑Order of Labour Court challenged in appeal before Appellate Tribunal ‑Appeal, held, not maintainable against order rejecting restoration applica tion‑Restoration application appearing to have been rejected without opportunity of explaining why same not filed on date under stood by petitioner to be date of hearing‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances registering matter as suo motu revision and notice accordingly issued to parties.

Shafiullah v. Globe Textile Mills Ltd. 1981 P L C 304'ref.

S. M. Kohistani for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 21st January. 1982

This purports to be an appeal under section 37(3), I. R. O., against the order of the learned First Labour Court, dated 19th December, 1981 dismissing the application filed by the appellant for the restoration of his grievance petition which was dismissed on 27th October, 1981 on account of the non‑appearances of both the appellant and his learned representa tive. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Shafiullah v. Globe Textile Mills Ltd. (1981 P L C 304), that no appeal lies against interlocutory orders passed by Labour Courts, including order rejecting applications for resto ration of appeals which have been dismissed for non‑appearance and default. As such no appeal lies and can be entertained against the impugned order, dated 19th December, 1981 of the learned Labour Court.

2. The restoration application was filed two days after the appeal was dismissed for default and the ground taken in the restoration applica tion was that the appellant had misheard the date given by the Court and had understood it to be 28th October, 1981 instead of 27th October, 1981. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the restoration application on the sole ground that if the contention of the appellant was correct the restoration application should have been filed on 28th October, 1981. It may be pointed out that the restoration application was filed on 29th October, 1981. Apart from the fact that there is no legal requirement of law that the appellant should have filed the restoration application on 28th October, 1981 the date which he claims to have mis‑heard, the appellant would naturally require some time to get prepared his restora tion application and swear the affidavit in support of the restoration application. At any rate the appellant should have been given an opportunity of explaining why the restoration application was not filed on 28th October, 1981, this was not done.

3. I am, therefore, of the view that this matter is to be registered as a suo motu revision application and notice be issued to the parties to show cause why the impugned order be not revised in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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