Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Revision No.RI‑330 of 1985, decided on 30th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Permission to withdraw grievance petition and to file fresh one‑‑Whether can be granted without notice to opposite party‑‑Petition presented by counsel‑‑Objection raised by respondent as to improper presentation and its non‑maintainability‑ Order of Labour Court allowing withdrawal with permission to bring fresh one without notice to respondent, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable and upheld by Appellate Tribunal in revision.
P L D 1985 Lah. 413 and P L D 1956 Lah. 474 ref.
Muhammad Saleem Khan for Petitioner.
Munawar Ahmad Javed for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 26th October, 1985.
The order, dated 30‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur allowing the withdrawal of the grievance petition with permission to bring fresh one, is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. In view of P L D 1985 Lah. 413 it was prayed that the grievance petition may be allowed to be withdrawn with permission to bring fresh one. The defect was that the petition had been presented by the lawyer and not by the respondent himself. It has been argued that permission to bring fresh petition was given without giving notice to the petitioner. P L D 1956 Lah. 474 has been cited. No doubt according to rule of natural justice, no order prejudicial to a party, can be. passed without issuing notice and without hearing him, but in the present case the very objection that the grievance petition was not maintainable was of the petitioner. If permission to withdraw the case had not been given, the petition would have been after some time rejected for improper presentation. By allowing the withdrawal with permission to bring fresh grievance petition, time was saved from being wasted. Question of limitation does arise in both eventualities. So even though permission have been given for bringing fresh grievance petition, yet question of limitation would arise in the fresh grievance petition. So the petitioner has not been prejudiced by the impugned order even though it was passed without giving notice to him.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed.
A. E. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer