Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-689 of 1981, decided on 10th July, 1982.

---S. 25-A--Grievance petition dismissed in default--Application for restoration made after ten months also dismissed--Only reason of delay being illness of appellant not found satisfactory--Petition, held, was rightly dismissed.

Naeem Sultan Butt for Appellant.

Zaka-ur-Rehman Khan Lodhi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 29th June, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 11‑5‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, whereby the application of the appellant for the restoration of his grievance petition was dismissed. The grievance petition was dismissed in default on 14‑11‑1979 and the application for its restoration was dismissed on merits and the said order has been challenged in this appeal.

2. The application for restoration of the grievance petition was hope lessly time‑barred, inasmuch as it was brought after the delay of about 10 months and the only ground is that the appellant remained suffering from Asthma. The appellant could have sent information to his counsel or to the court and requested for adjournment. No reason has been given why it was not done. The learned counsel says that since the appellant was suffering from acute Asthma, therefore, he could not send any application to the Court. I do not find any force in this argument. A person suffering from Asthma is not under acute attack 24 hours. It, therefore, cannot be said that within the period of ten months the appellant was under acute attack. Asthma is a prolong illness and unless the patient is under acute fits of attack, he can perform his daily persuits and he is not under attack. It was, therefore, possible for the appellant to have made an application for restoration within the period of limitation. The other thing is that even if it be said that the appellant remained under continued severe attack of Asthma throughout the whole period of ten months, there si no reason why his counsel did not appear on the date fixed and why he was not in a position to bring the application for restoration within 30 days. When the appellant was in a position to go to the Clinic of the Doctor from whom he had taken the certificate, there appears to be no reason why he did not go to his counsel and to the court. No case for restoration was made out and the petition was rightly dismissed.

3. As an upshot of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed.

M. I.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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