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.
Revision No. MN‑79 of 1985, decided on 22nd July, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Restoration of grievance petition dismissed in default‑‑Presiding Officer on tour and Ahmad of Court adjourning case for next date‑‑Presiding Officer present on such next date but petitioner and his counsel not present‑‑Petition dismissed in default‑‑Application for restoration subsequently accepted‑ Plea that counsel for petitioner had appeared on date when Ahmad adjourned case such petitioner and his counsel should have appeared on such adjourned date‑‑Presiding Officer, in circumstances, held, was justified in restoring grievance petition and Appellate Tribunal in revision upholding Order of Labour Court.
Ch. Nazir Hussain for Petitioner.
Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 10th July, 1985.
The order, dated 7‑2‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan is informed to be of no legal effect, whereby the application of the respondent for the restoration of grievance petition was accepted.
2. On 4‑12‑1983 the learned Presiding Officer was on tour. The counsel for the parties appeared and the Ahmad adjourned the case to 4‑2‑1984. On the said date neither the learned Presiding Officer was present nor any of the parties and their counsel appeared. The Ahmad adjourned the case to 22‑2‑1984. On the adjourned date the learned Presiding Officer was present but the respondent and his counsel was absent although the counsel for the petitioner was present. The grievance petition was dismissed in default. The application for the restoration was made by the respondent, which was accepted.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the learned counsel for the respondent had appeared on 4‑12‑1983 when the Ahmad had adjourned the case, the respondent and his counsel should have appeared on 22‑2‑1984 even though on 4‑2‑1984 none of the parties and their counsel and the learned Presiding Officer were present. If the learned Presiding Officer had been present on 4‑2‑1984 the grievance petition could have been dismissed in default as on the previous date the counsel was present and the Ahmad had adjourned the case to the said date, but since the learned Presiding Officer was not present on 4‑2‑1984 and the Ahmad had no power to A issue notices to the parties the case was rightly adjourned to 22‑2‑1984 without passing any such order. In these circumstances the learned lower Court was justified in restoring the grievance petition. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order for which suo motu revisional powers may be exercised.
4. As a result of the observations made above, the revision is dismissed.
A. E
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer