Find a Lawyer

Appeal No KAR‑199 of 1982, beard on 6th May, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑Ss. ‑25‑A, 36 & 38‑Procedure‑Dismissal for default‑Petitioner seeking permission to be represented by an Advocate‑Notice of next date of hearing served upon such Advocate but permission refused in presence of such Advocate and petition dismissed due to absence of petitioner‑Notice of hearing date not having been served on petitioner, order of Labour Court set aside and case remanded by Appellate Tribunal.

Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant.

Abdul Hafiz for Respondent No: 1.

Syed Izhar Ahmad for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 1982.

DECISION

The appellant, who claims to be a permanent workman in the respondent industries and whose services are said to have verbally been terminated, preferred a grievance petition before the learned Fourth Labour Court pray ing for re‑instatement in service with frill back benefits. It appears that along with this grievance petition Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, Advocate, filed an application seeking permission under section 49, I.R O. to appear for and represent the appellant herein. The learned Labour Court on 11‑4‑1981 passed an order on the appellant's grievance petition, directing that the appellant be heard on 13‑4‑1982. This order was neither communicated to the appellant nor to his learned counsel, Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, but it was noted by one Shahid All, who is said to have represented the appel lant. On 1.3‑4‑1982, the said Shahid Ali appeared before the learned Fourth Labour Court but the learned Presiding Officer refused to hear him on the ground that he was not an office‑bearer of a C.B.A. and was, therefore, not entitled to represent the appellant/petitioner. As the petitioner was not present the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for default; Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have 'heard Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for the appellant, Mr. Abdul Hafiz, Advocate, for the first respondent and Mr. Syed Izhar Ahmad for respondent No. 2 A perusal of the record of the learned Labour Court makes it clear that the date of hearing, i.e. 13‑4‑1982, on which date the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. was neither communicated to the appellant nor to his learned Advocate, Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim. The date, however, was noted by Shahid Ali. who is said to have been the agent or representative of the appellant. If the learned Labour ,Court is correct in its view that Shahid Ali could not represent the appellant, then notice of hearing was not given to the appellant or his Advocate. On the other hand, if Shahid Ali was the authorised representative of the appellant, the dismissal of the grievance petition was not valid. In either case, the order of the learned Labour Court cannot be sustained. I would, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits.

Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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