1978 PLP 161 (PLC)
GHULAM RASUL Versus Ch. RAFIQ AHMAD, PERSONNEL MANAGER, PACKAGES LTD.
| Citation | 1978 PLP 161 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | 1st Labour Court Punjab |
| Bench Members | Malik Lehrosap Khan, Presiding Officer |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL Versus Ch. RAFIQ AHMAD, PERSONNEL MANAGER, PACKAGES LTD. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 161 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 161 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the 1st Labour Court Punjab bench comprising: Malik Lehrosap Khan, Presiding Officer.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 161 (PLC) (GHULAM RASUL Versus Ch. RAFIQ AHMAD, PERSONNEL MANAGER, PACKAGES LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Tahir for Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 36‑D ‑Appeal‑Petition dismissed for default by Junior Labour Court‑‑Absence allegedly due to serious illness of party and engage ment of counsel elsewhere‑Normal course of application for restora tion brat adopted before Junior Labour Court‑Appeal not supported by any plausible reason for absence of counsel and medical certificate in respect of party‑Prayer for restoration, in circumstances, rejected Akhtar Hussain v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore P L D 1966 Lah. 567 and P L D 1951 B J 47 rel. Javed Altaf for the Management.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Rasool appellant an employee of Packages Limited filed applica tion under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the respondent seeking his re‑instatement into service. This application remained pending before the Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lahore. In the said Court 15th July 1975 was fixed as date of hearing for filing of reply by the respondent but on that date the application absented himself when the case was called. The learned Lower Court recorded an order for calling the case again on the same day at 1‑30 p. m.
2. The case was called for the second time at 2 p.m. but the appellant was still absent. The representative of the respondent was present. Consequently application filed by the appellant was dismissed for default.
3. The present appeal has been filed impugning the aforesaid order dated 15th July, 1975 of the learned lower Court.
4. It is maintained in the memorandum of appeal that on the date of hearing the appellant could not appear on account of his serious illness and that his counsel also was busy in some other Court on that date. It is note worthy that no Medical Certificate regarding the alleged ailment of the appellant the been produced.
5. Ordinarily the appellant should have filed application before the learned Lower Court for restoration of his case and the said Court could restore the same if it was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for doing so. This procedure for the reasons best known to the appellant has not been followed. The alleged ailment of the appellant on the date of hearing as stated earlier, is not proved. Similarly no plausible reason is forthcoming for the absence of the appellants counsel till 2 p.m. In cases where a counsel is engaged, explanation is required to be submitted about the absence of the counsel. It has been so held in Akhtar Hussain v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore (P L D 1966 Lah. 567). Similar view has been taken in P L D 1951 B J 47.
6. In the light of what has been said above, it is concluded that there does not appear to be any sufficient cause for restoration of the appellants case which was dismissed for default at 2 p. m. on 15th July, 1975. In this view of the matter the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.