Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS MULTAN versus RAFI-UD-DIN


The Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 section 38 appeals against the previous Labor Order order that the absence of a lawyer before the Labor Court was sufficient, so the application of the previous parcel decision before the Labor Court was set aside Can be debated and evidence should be found on this. Nothing is presented on the record for the impression that there were grounds for not appearing in the Labor Court, in which case, the appeal, dismissed, to justify the incontrovertible evidence,

1985 P L C 839

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS MULTAN AND OTHERS

Versus

RAFI‑UD‑DIN

Appeal No. MN‑42 of 1,984, decided on 27th June, 1984.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑S. 38‑Appeal against ex parte order of Labour Court‑Argument that non‑appearance of counsel before Labour Court was for sufficient grounds‑Such contention, held, could be raised in application for setting aside ex parse decision before Labour Court and evidence thereon should have been produced‑Nothing on record to the effect that there were sufficient grounds for non‑appearance --Labour Court, in circumstances, held, justified in believing unrebutted evidence‑Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 25th June, 1984.

JUDGMENT

The ex parte decision dated 30th October, 1983 has been challenged in this appeal. The respondent appeared as his own witness and examined Hassan Ali retired S.E./R.T.L. The respondent stated that his junior namely Ramzan and Karim Bakhsh, etc. were confirmed but he was ignored. P.W. 2 said that Karim Bakhsh was confirmed without being recommended by the Selection Committee but the respondent was ignored. He also stated that the respondent worked him and that his work and conduct were satisfactory. Both the witnesses said that the respondent and others were appointed not on the recommendation of any Selection Committee. It has been argued that no seniority list was produced by the respondent. The seniority list was with the appellant and not with the respondent. The appellant was given dates for evidence but neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced.

2. It has been argued that there were sufficient grounds for the non‑appearance of the counsel. I am afraid such a contention could be made in an application for setting aside the ex parte decision in the learned lower Court and evidence produced on the point. There is nothing on the learned lower Court's file to the effect that there were sufficient grounds for non‑appearance on 30th October, 1983. The learned lower Court was as such justified in believing the unrebutted evidence.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

A.E.

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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates email from Islamabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.