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.
Appeal No. LHR‑40 of 1985, decided on 30th April, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. XVII, rr. 1 & 3‑‑Adjudication of grievance petition‑‑Practice and procedure‑ Adjournment‑‑No written statement filed and none appeared on behalf of respondent‑‑Respondent appearing on next date not applying for setting aside ex parte proceedings but allowed to join proceedings and case adjourned allowing him opportunity of evidence‑‑No evidence produced on next date‑‑Labour Court closing evidence and pronouncing judgment‑‑Such date not fixed on request of respondent but given only in routine‑‑Rule 3 of 0. XVII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in circumstances, held, not attracted and one adjournment should have been granted by Labour Court under r. 1 of 0. XVII ibid‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for re‑decision with direction that respondent (appellant) be given last opportunity to file written statement and produce evidence on payment of fine of Rs.200 as costs.
Faizlur‑Rehman for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th April, 1985.
The decision, dated 20‑12‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the respondent brought against the reversion order was accepted.
2. The respondent was a coolie and was promoted as a Fitter. He was thereafter reverted. No written statement was filed by the appellant nor any evidence was produced. Notice issued for 17‑11‑1984 was served upon one Jamil‑ur-Rehman on 24‑10‑1984 but none had appeared on the date fixed. However, Ibrar Hussain, Superintending Engineer appeared for the appellant before the Labour Court on 22‑11‑1984 but did not apply for setting aside the ex parte proceedings nor written statement was filed. He was allowed to join the proceedings and the case was adjourned allowing opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence. No evidence was produced on the said date, therefore, the lower Court had closed the evidence and pronounced the judgment. As the date, 20‑12‑1984 was not fixed on the request of the appellant but was given in routine, Order XVII, rule 3 was not attracted, therefore, one adjournment under Order XVII, rule 1 should have been granted by the learned Labour Court. By closing the case of the appellant not the appellant but some other employee may have been prejudiced. It has been argued that one Khalil had been reverted as fitter and for, this reason the reversion of the respondent had taken place. Since the order of reversion of the respondent has been set aside by the learned lower Court, the said Khalil who was not even a party, may have suffered if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct. In these circumstances it appears necessary to give opportunity to the appellant to file written statement and produce evidence.
3. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for re‑decision with the direction that last opportunity be given to the appellant to file written statement and produce evidence on payment of Rs.200 as costs.
A. E. Appeal accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer