Find a Lawyer

Revision No. MN‑286 of 1985, decided on 28th January, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Ex parte pro ceedings‑‑Decision not yet passed‑‑Proceedings yet at evidence stage‑ Case in, circumstances, held, fit for interference in revision and order of Labour Court dismissing application for setting aside ex parte proceeding set aside by Appellate Tribunal burdening applicant with costs of Rs.200.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent.

The order, dated 29‑6‑1985, whereby the petition of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte proceedings was dismissed is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect. On a previous date, the reason for non‑appearance of the counsel put before the learned lower Court was that the counsel had refused to conduct the cases. In the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, it was pleaded that the counsel was busy in the other Court. Whatever the reason may be, since ex parte decision has not been passed and plea of the respondent was not that the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings was time‑barred, it would have been in the fitness of things if the learned lower Court had set aside the ex parte proceedings. If the petitioner had shown negligence, it could be burdened with costs. Only one witness of the respondent had appeared and the petitioner wishes to cross‑examine her and to produce its own evidence. So far as evidence to be produced by the petitioner is concerned, the lower Court has allowed the same. The next date is fixed for this purpose. So the only difference by accepting this petition would be that the petitioner will cross‑examine the respondent. In these circumstances, it appears to be fit case for interference. I, accordingly, accept the revision and sell aside the impugned order on payment of Rs.200 as costs.

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.