| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3192 1970 SLD 3192 = 1970 SCMR 821 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 80-D of 1970, decided on 25th June 1970.
Presented By: Sajjad Ahmad and M. R. Khan, JJ
Amirul Islam, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 80-D of 1970, decided on 25th June 1970.
Presented By: Sajjad Ahmad and M. R. Khan, JJ
Amirul Islam, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
JOHANN KELLER WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES UNION-Petitioner
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, THIRD LABOUR COURT, GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law:
Section:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 4th -May 1970, in Writ Petition No. 102 of 1970). East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act (VI of 1965), S. 6 Notice-Labour dispute-Giving notice of date fixed for hearing of dispute-Not enjoined by rules of procedure-Parties to ascertain such date themselves. Date of hearing : 25th June 1970. JUDGMENT M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner, a recognised Trade Union filed Labour Dispute Case No. 94 of 1969 in the Third Labour Court, Dacca on the 13th August 1969. The petitioner thereafter received from the Labour Court a copy of the notice fixing 13-9-69 as the date for filing written statement. The petitioner went to the Labour Court and came to learn that the written statement was ultimately filed by the employer on the 11th October 1969. The said case was, however, dismissed on the 4th December 1969 for default, in the absence of both the parties. The petitioner then made an application before the Labour Court for restoration of the case on the ground that the date of hearing was not communicated to the petitioner by giving a notice. The Labour Court found that the petitioner attended the Court from time to time and was of the view that it was not required of the Court to give any notice to the petitioner, informing the date of hearing. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court held that there was no sufficient cause for the absence of the petitioner when the case was called on for hearing. The application for restoration of the case was accordingly dismissed. The petitioner then moved a writ petition in the High Court, calling in question the legality of the Labour Court's order dismissing the application for restoration. The High Court agreed with the view taken by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. The petition for special leave .is directed against the order of the High Court. Mr. Amirul Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court' was wrong in not holding that there…