Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1516 1985 SLD 1516 1985 PLC 56
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. Lhr-1068 of 1978, decided on 28th February, 1982.
SARDAR 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

PROJECT DIRECTOR, LAHORE MILK PLANT

VS

FATEH KHAN

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ---S. 25-A--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, rr. 1 & 10-­Grievance petition against dismissal from service--Notice issued by Labour Court to defendant for specific date--Defendant's request for adjournment enabling him to file written reply, refused by Court and pronounced against him--Order challenged before Tribunal--Held: No direction having been issued by Court to file written statement, there was no justification to pronounce --Case remanded for decision on merits. Riaz Haider Zaidi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1982. ORDER The facts giving rise to this appeal are that during the duty-hours of the respondent as Chowkidar two batteries of the appellant were stolen. He was, therefore, charge-sheeted and his services were terminated. He brought a grievance petition to the Labour Court in which notice was issued to the appellant for 18th of November, 1978. On the said date, the case was called thrice with intermitent, but nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. Again the case was called. Sikandar Hayat, Labour Officer, appeared and requested for adjournment for filing written reply for the reason that he had prepared the draft which was to be got signed. The learned lower Court refused to adjourn the case and pronounced the judgment against the appellant. The said order has been challenged in this appeal. 2. There is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance for pronouncing judgment if written reply is not filed and the learned lower Court appears to have acted under Order VIII, rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. The relevant Rule reads as under:- "Where any party from whom a written statement is so required fails to present the same within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit." 3. Examination of rule 1 of Order VIII also appears to be…
🔒
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