Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑658 of 1982, decided on 13th June, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 37 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, r. 10‑Grievance petition‑Adjudication by Labour Court Striking off defence of respondent‑‑‑Respondent failing to file written statement on date fixed therefor ‑‑ Only one short adjournment granted and thereafter his defence struck off ‑Petition decided without evidence‑Provisions of O. VIII, r. 10 of Civil Procedure .Code, 1908, in circumstances, held, though not attracted but it would have been in fitness of things if more opportunity had been granted to respondent with or without cost ‑ Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for deci sion after opportunity to respondent to file written statement.

Hamid Mahmood for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 8th June, 1983.

The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 9th October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby striking off the defence of the .appellant the grievance petition of the respondent for T. A./D. A. and hotel charges was accepted. In reality only two adjournments were given on the request of the appellant for filing written statement. The representative of the appellant appeared for the first time on 3rd August, 1982 for which date notice of the grievance petition had been served upon the appellant. This was not the date for reply on the request of the appellant, so is to be ignored. On the request of the appellant the case was adjourned to 23rd September, 1982 for filing written statement. The case was on the request of the appellant further adjourned to 7th October, 1982 for the same purpose, but no written statement was filed. The case was then adjourned to 9th October, 1982 for the same purpose. This was a very short date being of two days only and thus is to be ignored. No doubt, Order VIII, rule 10, C. P. C. did stand attracted but it would have been in the fitness of things if one more opportunity had been granted with or without costs. It has been argued that since the respondent bad claimed hotel E charges, it was to be verified from Karachi if at all the respondent had stayed in the hotel. Owing to the peculiar circumstances, this was not a fit case for striking off the defence. The, other thing is that the case was decided without inviting evidence. No receipts are on the file. The respondent has during arguments admitted the recovery of some charges. If his statement had been recorded, he would have given the amount already received by him, which fact is not mentioned in the petition. So merely on the basis of the plaint, it was not safe to accept the claim of the respondent. For this reason , also the impugned order is not sustainable.

2. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that allowing last opportunity to the appellant to file written statement and giving opportunity to the ' parties to lead evidence of their choice on the disputed points. the case be re-decided.

A. E Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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