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‑2 of 1984, decided on 11th December, 1984.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 36, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. VII, r.11‑ Grievance petition‑‑Rejection of‑‑Petition disclosing cause of grievance‑ Cannot be dismissed/ rejected summarily‑‑Labour Court without opportunity to petitioner to disprove impression that respondent (employer) was a Diplomatic Agent dismissing petition as not maintainable‑‑Grievance petition otherwise disclosing cause of grievance‑‑Impugned decision of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for hearing and re‑decision in conventional manner.
H.R. Haider for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 4th December, 1984.
The decision, dated 8‑12‑1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed in limine without affording him opportunity to prove the case.
2. The learned lower Court has observed that the respondent is a diplomatic agent and thus could be sued only under section 86‑A, C.P.C. This is not understandable from where the learned lower Court has learnt that the respondent is a diplomatic agent. The appellant has not described the respondent as such in his grievance petition and there is no written statement as no notice was issued to the respondent. Even if the learned Presiding Officer was of the view that the respondent was a diplomatic agent and could not be sued, he should have afforded opportunity to the appellant to disprove such an impression. Needless to say that grievance petition may be rejected only if it does not disclose any cause of grievance as plaints are rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The grievance petition does disclose a cause of grievance, so it could not be dismissed /rejected summarily.
3. Notice of appeal was issued to the respondent by registered post and since it did not come back unnerved, the presumption is that it was served. Notice was sent by post, as the notice sent through a Process‑Server had come back with the report that the officer had said that it be sent by post. Since nobody appeared, so the appeal was heard ex parte on 4‑12‑1984.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted ex parte and setting aside the impugned decision, the case is remanded for hearing and decision in the conventional manner.
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