Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑171iPb. of 1981, decided on 22nd March, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 36 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Q. XVII, r. 5‑Procedure‑‑Presiding Officer Labour Court on leave on date fixed for hearing and none attending for respondent‑Case adjourned to some other date by Reader‑‑Contention that fresh notice should have been issued‑Repelled‑None attending on behalf of respondent on date so adjourned by Reader‑Ex parte proceedings, in circumstances, held, correctly and adjourn date fixed by Reader upheld by Lower Appellate Tribunal.

Syed Muhammad Naqvi for Appellants.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.

pate of hearing : 16th March, 1983.

This appeal arises front the decision dated 5‑2‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decision was dismissed.

2. The counsel for the appellant had attended the learned lower Court on 23‑1‑1980 when the case was adjourned to 9‑2‑1980. On the said date i.e. 9‑2‑1980 nobody appeared for the appellant. The learned trial judge was on leave and the Reader had adjourned the case to 2‑3‑1980; None appeared for the appellant on the adjourned date, so the case was ordered to proceed ex parte against the appellant. The case was adjourn ed to 18‑3‑1980 for ex parse evidence and on the said date ex parte decision was passed. Petition for setting aside ex parte decision was lodged on 17‑4‑1980.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since on 9‑2‑1980 the learned Presiding Officer was not present, the appellant was not bound to appear and Reader not being judicial officer could not fix the date and that. fresh notice should have been issued to the appellant. This argument is not tenable: According to Order XVII, rule 5, the Reader rightly adjourned the case to 2‑3‑1980. The Appellant should A have in its own interest attended the Court on the said date. Since be did not appear, he should have found and what was the next date. The Court was not bound to issue fresh notice for 2‑3‑1980. The appellant was, there fore, rightly proceeded against ex parte, and ex parte decision was rightly passed.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petition for setting aside ex parte decision was time‑barred. This is not correct. On 18‑3‑1980 tire ex parte decision was pronounced and on 17‑4‑1980 the petition for setting aside the same was lodged. It was, therefore, within time.

5. As a result of what has been said above, there is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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