1976 PLP 91 (PLC)

M. M. Jeelani for Appellant. M. A. Khan for Respondent. Date hearing: 18th December 1975. This appeal has been filed against the award of the Labour Court dismissing the application for non-prosecution. The appellant-Union had raised an industrial dispute by presenting a charter of demands followed by strike notice. Conciliation proceed ings having failed the dispute was taken to the Labour Court. The demands were resisted by the respondent and written statement was filed. The Union was required to file an affidavit in support of the demands but it was not filed and, therefore, the dispute was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. On the perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the argu ments I see no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The application was dismissed on the ground that despite several adjourn ments having been granted affidavit was not filed in support of the demands. Briefly stating the history of the case, the application under section 32 was filed by the Union on 19th May 1975. It was admitted on tad June 1975. The respondent put in appearance and the case was adjourned to 9th June 1975 in order to enable the appellant to file the statement of claim. On 9th June 1975 an application on behalf of the appellant was made for adjournment and so the case was adjourned to 16th June 1975. On that date statement of claim was filed and the case was adjourned to 24th June 1975 for filing written statement. This was done and the case was adjourned to 2nd July 1975 to enable the appellant to file the affidavit. On the adjourned hearing an application was made for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 14th July 1975. Again an adjournment was sought and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 21st July 1975. Still no affidavit was filed and an application for adjournment was made on the ground that the representative of the appellant bad to go to Baqai Hospital to get his sister admitted. This was rejected for the reason that Mr. Jeelani was not the representative but the representative was Mr. Jan who was present in the Court. Consequently the application was dismissed for non-prosecution. From the statement of facts it is clear that the appellant had been seeking adjournments from time to time and the matter was being protracted without any sufficient reason. The Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application for further adjournment. It cannot be said that the discretion had been improperly exercised. It had been, however, urged that through oversight it was mentioned in the application that the representative of the appellant was absent but in fact what was intended was that Mr. Jeelani, General Secretary of the Union was absent and he had to file his affidavit. This is a question of fact and cannot be gone into for the first time in appeal. There is also no proof in support of the contention that Mr. Jeelani, General Secretary had to go to the Baqai Hospital for the purpose indicated by the appellant. Again this becomes a question of lA fact. The appellant should have been well-advised to have approached the Labour Court in the first instance for setting aside the ex parte award on the grounds which have been sought to be relied upon in this appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed.