Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

LIAQAT ALI versus MESSRS PACKAGES LTD.


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 A Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), I IX, r 4 The request for a default rehabilitation was dismissed on the basis that the date of the various hearings was emphasized. Incorrectly noted, no such diary contains a recorded date for which a restoration application may, in the circumstances, be dismissed by the Labor Court, dismissed.

1983 P L C 587

[Labour Appellate Tribunal

Punjab

]

Before Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

LIAQAT ALI

versus

MESSRS PACKAGES LTD.

Appeal No. LHR 55 of 1982JPb., decided on 6th March, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---

--‑‑S. 25‑A‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 4 Grievance petition‑Dismissed for default‑Restoration application stressed on grounds that different hearing date erroneously noted down‑No diary containing such recorded date produced‑Restora tion application, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.

G. Haider Alghazali for Appellant.

Mian Muhammad Yasin for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 1st January. 1983.

JUDGEMENT

This appeal arises from the decision dated18‑1‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the petition for restoration of the grievance. petition dismissed in default on 5‑8‑1981 was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant was fixed on 5‑8‑1981 for evidence. On the said date the counsel for the appellant namely, Mr. Har4id Ali Mirza informed the court that he had no instructions to prosecute the case and requested that he be allowed to withdraw it. The appellant had not appeared, therefore the case was dismissed for non‑prosecution.

3. The ground given by the appellant in his petition .for restoration was that he had by mistake noted down the date as 5‑10‑1981 and had come to know about the dismissal of the case on 5‑10‑1981. Application for restoration was given on 2‑11‑1981 supported by an affidavit. On behalf of the respondent a counter‑affidavit was filed. No diary, its copy; brief or its copy was produced to show that actually the date was noted down wrongly. The appellant. knew that the plea taken by him was that he had noted down the date wrongly, so he could have realised anti counsel also must have advised him to produce the diary or the brief. Thus the very plea that the appellant had wrongly noted down the date is false or at least stands disproved. The petition for restoration was, therefore, rightly dismissed. 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
ask a advocate free from Tall lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.