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

versus


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Sections 36 and 38 (3a) Reviewing Labor Court Practices and Procedures Postponing the Presiding Officer to the Sixth Reader until a later date, and in the absence of the applicant, the applicant makes a decisive application on such fixed date. The wrongful presence of a Labor court lawyer was recorded by the prosecuting attorney, in which case, denying an unreasonable appellate tribunal while reviewing the case to stop the unwanted decision of the Labor Court and seeking remand for the decision after hearing the parties. Of
1986 P L C 504

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]

Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal

Malik ABDUL RAZAQ

Versus

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN

Revision No. MN‑249 of 1984, decided on 22nd October, 1985.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss. 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Revision‑‑Presiding Officer of Labour Court on leave‑‑Reader adjourning case to future date and wrongly recording presence of counsel of petitioner‑‑Labour Court on such fixed date deciding petition in absence of petitioner's counsel‑ Petitioner, in circumstances, held, condemned unheard‑‑Appellate Tribunal in revision setting aside impugned decision of Labour Court and remanding case for re‑decision after hearing parties.

Ch Nazir Hussain for Petitioner. Gulzar Ahmad Alvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th October, 1985.

JUDGMENT

The decision, dated 9‑8‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan is reported to be of no legal effect as it was passed without hearing the parties.

2. The date for arguments of the appeal was 10‑6‑1984. The appeal was adjourned to 29‑7‑1984. None appeared for the petitioner on the said date. The learned lower appellate Court adjourned the case to the following day for decision as according to it, the counsel for the parties had displayed non‑co‑operating attitude by not appearing in person to argue the appeal. On 30‑7‑1984 the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the Reader adjourned the appeal to 9‑8‑1984 and on the said date the appeal was accepted in the absence of the petitioner's counsel. It has been argued that the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on 31‑7‑1984 and the Reader wrongly recorded his presence. Photo copy of cause list of 29th, 30th and 31st have been produced with the revision. The appeal in question does not find place in any of them. This being so, the contention that the Reader wrongly recorded the presence may be correct. So, the petitioner has been condemned unheard.

3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the appeal is remanded for redecision after hearing both the parties.

A. E.

Revision accepted.

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
when you need a advocate from Jauharabad 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.