| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 1500 1989 SLD 1500 1989 PLC 693 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No KAR-22 of 1989, decided on 6th March. 1989.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.L.Shahani for Appellant.
Appeal No KAR-22 of 1989, decided on 6th March. 1989.
AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.L.Shahani for Appellant.
SHAHZAD ALAM MIRZA
VS
PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD.
Law:
Section:
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----- ---Ss.25-A, 36 & 38(3)--Practice and procedure--Application for restoration of petition dismissed in default--Previous conduct of applicant, very relevant-Counsel for applicant stating before Labour Court that applicant was not attending despite his instructions--Labour Court taking into consideration conduct of applicant while dismissing application for restoration made after more than three weeks and supported by suspicious medical certificate--Order of Labour Court maintained in appeal. DECISION Heard Mr., M.L. Shahani, Advocate: This appeal is against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No.IV at Karachi, dated 15-12-1988, whereby he dismissed the application for restoration of the grievance application of the applicant which was dismissed in default on 8-10-1988. The relevant portion of the impugned order narrating the history of the case as well as reasons of dismissal is reproduced as under:- "Ordinarily, Orders such as impugned orders are passed after keeping in view the previous conduct of the party and this regard, it is seen that the petitioners after filing their affidavit in evidence on 6-7-1988 did not appear on 19-7-1988, 3-9-1988 and also on 22-9-1988. The contention of the petitioners and their learned Advocate in the affidavit in rejoinder that the case would not proceed on 22-9-1988 on account of absence of Peshkar or the stenographer is not supported by the case-diary. So far, particularly on 8-10-1988 the date on which the impugned order was passed is concerned the diary shows that the petitioners were called absent and it was noted that they had remained absent on previous four hearings as well and the learned Advocate for petitioners had stated that the petitioners were not attending, the Court despite their instructions. Then, without casting doubt on the medical certificates it is observed that it has not been stated therein that the condition of the petitioners was such that they could not intimate either their Advocate or this…
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