Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-598 of 1983, decided on 3rd May, 1984.

-- Ss. 25-A & 36 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 8-Grievance petition-Dismissal for default-Evidence of petitioner recorded and closed and case adjourned to next date for evidence of respondent-Petitioner and counsel absenting on such date through representative of respondents and his witness present-Labour Court dismissing grievance petition-Evidence of petitioner having already recorded and closed order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition in default, in circumstances, held, not warranted by law-Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded by consent of parties, for rehearing from stage already reached prior to passing impugned order.

Mirza Muhammad Naeem for Appellant.

A. Hafeez for the Respondent.

Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1984.

The facts briefly stated are that the appellant, Muhammad Sultan filed an application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, for his reinstatement and back benefits against respondent establishment before the IVth Labour Court at Karachi. Ultimately, it was received by transfer by the Ist Labour Court at Karachi. In the proceedings, the appellant examined himself and witness Maqbool and closed his side. The proceedings were adjourned and ultimately on 4th March, 1983, the matter was fixed for recording of evidence of the respondents. On the date, the appellant and his counsel remained absent whereas Muhammad Umar, the Enquiry Officer, the respondents witness was present for cross-examination. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application in default for absence of the appellant and his counsel. Restoration application was filed. It was dismissed vide order, dated 11^th August, 1983. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant has come in this appeal.

2. I have heard Mr. Mirza Muhammad Naeem and Mr. Abdul Hafeez the learned representatives for the parties. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Naeem on behalf of the appellant has mainly contended that in view of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and subsection (5) of section 25-A. 1. R. O. 1969, the learned Labour Court in the circumstances that the appellant's evidence was already recorded and closed should have disposed of the case on merits rather than to have dismissed it in default, Mr. Abdul Hafeez on behalf of the respondent has frankly conceded to the position and has agreed that the impugned orders passed by the learned Labour Court dismissing the appellant's application under section 25-A. I. R. O., 1969 in default and the restoration application in the circumstances of the present case, are not warranted by ether the provisions Civil Procedure Code or Industrial Relations Ordinance. By consent of the learned representatives of the parties, therefore, the impugned orders, dated 3rd March, 1983 and 11th August, 1983 are set aside and the case is remanded far re-hearing from the stage it had reached on 3rd March, 1983 when the impugned order dismissing the application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, was passed. However, the case is referred to the Labour Court No. 11 at Karachi instead of Labour Court No.1 for disposal according to law. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

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.