Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 1295 1984 SLD 1295 1984 PLC 619
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. LHR-397 of 1981 heard on 2nd May, 1982.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD.

VS

Khawaja MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)­---- ---S. 37 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 19-Appeal - Dismissed in default - Re-admission - Default in appearance due to negligence of counsel-Negligence not characterised as gross-Respondent remaining waiting upto last­-Application for re-admission, in circumstances, accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100 as compensation to respondent. Asad Munir for petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 2nd May, 1982. JUDGMENT The appeal was dismissed in default on 2nd December, 1981. The petitioner has now applied for the re-admission of the appeal. The petition has been opposed by the respondent. The grounds given in the petition are that the learned counsel had come at 9-30 a. m. but was told that some cases of the previous day's cause list would be taken up first and that since the present appeal was listed in the bottom, learned counsel left at 10-00 a. m. to attend other cases in the other Courts, that the learned counsel returned at 11-30 a. m. and waited up to 12-30 p. m. but due to long cause list the turn of the appeal did not come, that the learned counsel left to attend other cases in other Courts and came back at about 1-45 p. m. when he came to know that no more cases would be taken up by the Court and that receiving this information, the learned counsel left. The petition is supported by an affidavit. No other evidence documentary or oral was produced on behalf of- the petition. The learned counsel said that he wanted to produce Mr. Tariq Masood but he had not brought him on the date fixed for the hearing of the restoration peti­tion. The respondent came in the witness-box himself and deposed that he could not say if the learned counsel for the petitioner had come or not at 9-30 a. m. on 2nd December, 1981 but he added that he had not seen him. He belied the assertion made in the petition for restoration that at 10-00 a. m. learned counsel for the petitioner had left the Court. He further stated that it was wrongly recorded in the affidavit that at 11-30 a. m. learned counsel had come again and at 12-00 noon he had left. He also belied the assertion made in the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492