Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Petition No. LHR‑280 of 1983, decided on 22nd February, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 36‑Practice and procedure‑Grievance petition Notice to opposite party‑Service of ‑"Talbana" and "Registration envelop"‑Not required in Labour cases‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on ground that neither "Talbana" nor Registra tion envelop supplied. for sending notice to opposite‑party‑Notice in labour case to opposite‑party is issued by using service stamps Petitioner, in circumstances, held, did not commit any fault calling for dismissal of petition‑Order of Labour Court, held, not sustainable.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 36‑Practice and procedure‑Dismissal of grie vance petition for default‑Restoration‑Order of Labour Court restoring petition does not amount to review its previous order.
Asmat Kamal for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 13th February, 1984.
The revision captioned above emerges from the order, dated 23rd August, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the application of the petitioner for the restoration of their grievance petition was dismissed.
2. The ground on which the grievance petition was dismissed was that neither 'Talbana' nor registration envelop was supplied for sending notice to the opposite party. The learned lower Court has refused to restore the petition on the ground that the order right or wrong should have been complied with and non‑compliance justified the dismissal of the grievance petition. The other ground is that the Labour Courts have no powers to review their orders and decisions. In labour case no 'Talbana' and registration envelop are required. Notice to the opposition party is issued by using service‑stamps. So the petitioners did not commit any fault for which ‑an order dismissing the petition may have been called for. . The order of dismissal is, therefore, not sustainable and the grievance petition should have been restored.
3. The application of the petitioners was not for recalling the order of dismissal of the grievance petition, but was for its restoration. If the grievance petition had been restored, the order would not have amounted to reviewing the previous order. The decision of this Court referred to by the learned lower Court was not on the point of restoration of the B grievance petition. In that case even the petition for restoration had been dismissed in default and the prayer was to restore that petition. The law is different in respect of the restoration of an application for the restoration of a grievance petition.
4 As a result of what has been said above, the revision is accepted ex parte and setting asside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the petitioner is directed to be restored and for being decided on merits.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer