Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑387 of 1979, decided on 7th June, 1982.

‑‑‑ S. 36‑Practice and procedure‑Adjournment‑Cannot be sought as of right‑Labour Court has no discretion to grant adjournment as a matter of course‑Adjournment is granted if a just cause shown‑‑Adjournment due to non‑availability of counsel‑Justified on one or two dates but not always ‑Eight adjournments already granted for same reasons‑Refusal to grant further adjournment on ground that Manager of Establishment (respondent) was ill‑No medical certificate produced‑Labour Court, in circumstances, justified in refusing adjournment and proceeding ex parte.

Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 30th May, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 7th May, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the case of the appellant was closed and the petition of the appellant for the restoration of the application for getting the ex parte decision set aside was dismissed for want of evidence.

2. The case was being adjourned right from 12th September, 1978 upto the last on the request of. the appellant for the reasons that his counsel was not available. Only on one intervening date which was 24th October, 1978 the case was adjourned as the Presiding Officer was on leave. The case had been adjourned for eight times on the request of the appellant, therefore, on 7th May, 1979 further request for adjournment was refused. I do not think that in these circumstances, the learned lower Court committed any mistake in refusing to grant further adjournment. The learned counsel for the appellant says that since never adjournment was granted on payment of costs, therefore, last opportunity should have been granted. I do not find any force in this argument. Seeking adjournment is not a right and the Court has no discretion to grant adjournment as a matter of course. The adjournment is granted if there is shown a just cause. The learned counsel has further argued that the appellant should not have been punished for the fault of, his counsel. Adjournment for the non‑availability of the counsel on one or two dates may be justified but in the present case eight adjournments had been taken for that reason. The ground for adjourn ments made on 7th May, 1979 was that the Manager of the appellant Industries was ill. No medical certificate of the Manager had been brought on the record to show that actually he was ill. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in refusing adjournment. Since no evidence had been produced by the appellant in support of his application for restoration, the petition was rightly dismissed for want of evidence. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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