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‑656 of 1985, decided on 14th December,
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37‑‑Grievance petition ‑‑Appeal Respondent making application that petition having been presented by Lawyer and not by petitioner was not maintainable‑‑Petitioner despite opportunity to oppose application not contesting same‑‑Petition, in circumstances rejected on grounds of improper presentation‑‑Order of not being decision under S. 25‑A, was not appealable.
Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 8th December, 1985.
The order, dated 24‑11‑1985 passed by the learned Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant on the ground of having been presented by the lawyer s appellant himself.
2. The impugned order was passed on the application of the respondents. Notice of the application was given to the appellant but he did not submit any reply and instead stated before lower Court that whatever order would be passed, he would accept it. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since no opportunity was given to the appellant to prove that he had himself presented the grievance petition, the impugned order is not maintainable. The argument has no force. Opportunity to oppose the application of respondents was given to the appellant but he did by filing any reply. When he was inquired by the learned lower Court what he had to say against the application, he instead for requesting for opportunity to produce evidence, said that whatever orders were passed by the Court, he would accept them. He thus gave an impression to the learned lower Court that he did not want to contest the petition. The grievance petition was thus rightly rejected for not having been properly presented.
3. Even no appeal lies as the impugned order is delivered under section 25‑A. The appeal could have been treated as a revision but since the impugned order does not appear to be wrong, there is no occasion to exercise suo motu revisional powers. It has not been said by the learned counsel either that the appellant was present in person on the date of presentation of the grievance petition or that within limitation he had personally appeared before the learned lower Court to pursue the grievance petition.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer