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. MN-282 of 1981, decided on 19th June, 1982.
----S.34 read with 9.37(4)--Revision petition before Tribunal against order of Labour Court--Dismissal in default--Restoration sought on ground that counsel was arrested and petitioner fell ill and could not appear--Held; Revision could not be made as a right, party invoking revisional jurisdiction should remain vigilant--Failure in seeking adjournment in circumstances of case was gross negligence--Restoration refused.
Muhammad Ikram for Petitioner. Muhammad Salim Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th June, 1982.
The order of the respondent, whereby working hours were increased from seven hours to eight hours daily was challenged in a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and in the said petition an application for ad interim injunction till the decision of the petition was made, restraining the respondent from implementing the order. The said petition was rejected and the order was challenged in revision before this Tribunal. The revision was dis missed in default on 25-5-1981. Application for its restoration was made, which has been opposed by the respondent. The ground is that the learned counsel for the petitioner had been arrested and was in Sahiwal Jail and for this reason he could not appear on the date fixed. About the petitioner it is said that he had fallen ill. A medical certificate is also produced. The revision cannot be made as of right. Only suo motu powers of revision have been given to this Tribunal to satisfy itself regarding the propriety of the orders passed by the Labour Courts. Since revision is not a, right of a party, the party invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal should remain very vigilant and even slightest negligence would not be pardonable. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner was prevented from appearing for sufficient reason, but the petitioner was negligent. Even if it be said that the had fallen ill, he was not prevented from sending an application or telegram seeking adjournment. Failure on the part of the petitioner in informing the court about his illness and seeking adjournment was gross negligence in the circumstances of the case. I, therefore, refuse to restore the revision petition and dismiss the petition, for restoration.
M. I.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer