Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 (3a) read with Civil Procedure Code (V 1908), O IX, r 4 Reinstatement of complaint dismissed in default also referred to dismissal of dismissal application On the basis of the merits which were dismissed in the default application for order of dismissal, it was rejected on the basis that the applicant appeared in another court in connection with any litigation not established by such evidence. Which has been represented by 3 lawyers but none of them are in the process of restoring the application of the Labor Appellate Tribunal in Vastu had been set for the hearing. The revised jurisdiction check record order, which was approved by the Labor Court, was upheld and the applicants were declared gross negligence.
Petition No. RYK-276 of 1981/Pb., decided on 16th April, 1983.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)
---Ss. 25-A & 38 (3-a) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 4 - Grievance petition - Dismissed in default Restoration application also dismissed in default - Petition for setting aside order regarding dismissal of restoration application dismissed on merits-Grounds that petitioner appeared in another Court in connection with some other litigation - Such appearance not established by evidence-Petitioner represented by 3 counsel but none of them appearing on date fixed for, application for restoration of grievance petition - Labour Appellate Tribunal in its suo motu revision jurisdiction examining record - Order passed by Labour Court in circumstances, upheld and petitioner held guilty of gross negligence.
Appellant in person.
M. G. Rabbani for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 22nd March, 1983.
JUDGEMENT This revision is directed against the order dated 24-5-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur.
The petitioner had brought a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur which was dismissed in default on 23-2-1980. The application for setting aside the order dated 23-2-1980 was lodged which too was dismissed in default on 23-7-1980. Petition for setting aside the order dated 23-7-1980 was made which was dismissed on merits on 24-5-1981. In the application for the restoration of his petition for the restoration of grievance petition, the request for the restoration of the original grievance petition was also made. But the evidence was produced to justify the absence on 23-7-1980 only. The ground is that on the same date his guardianship case was fixed before the Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan and his personal appearance was necessary, therefore, he had sent a telegram to the Labour Court for adjournment. He examined his counsel engaged in guardianship case who said that he had instructed the petitioner to appear in person on 23-7=1980 in the. said case. No telegram sent by the petitioner is on the file. A photostat copy of the telegram produced which is Exh. P. L but since this is not a copy attested by the Telegraph Officer, it has no evidentiary value. The respondent has produced certifies copy of the interlocutory order dated 23-7-1980 record ed in the guardianship case by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, in which the attendance of the petitioner is not recorded. The . statement of his counsel, therefore, stands rebutted by the copy of the said interlocutory order. The petitioner has wrongly stated that had objected to the fixation of the case on 23-7-1980 in the Court of the Senior Civil judge and that it was not accepted. P.W. 1 , counsel for the petitioner, had not stated so. This is not believable that the Reader of the Senior Civil Judge did not accept his request for not fixing the I date as 23-7-1980. It could make no difference for the Court of Senior Civil Judge to fix the case few days earlier or later than 23-7-1980, if any request had been made. Apart from it, the petitioner could have gone to the Labour Court or requested his counsel soon after the Senior Civil Judge has fixed the guardianship case on 23-7-1980, for changing the date in the petition under section 25-A. Moreover, the petitioner admitted in cross-examination that there were three counsel engaged by him for appearing before the Labour Court, but no reason has been given why none of his counsel did not appear before the Labour Court on 23-7-1980 The petitioner was guilty of gross negligence, so his petition for restoration was rightly disallowed.
As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the -revision and dismiss the same.
Revision dismissed.
