1999 PLP 147 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 28th August, 1998. This application is directed against the order dated 6‑7‑1998 and 30‑6‑1998, passed by learned Presiding Officer‑III, Hub whereby applicant's side was closed.

2. Precise facts relevant for disposal of instant petition are that respondent No. l Muhammad Ilyas filed an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, against applicant in the Court of learned Presiding Officer III, Labour Court, Hub. During proceedings the case was adjourned for 16‑6‑1998, for filing affidavit of the petitioner. In this regard a request was made by the Counsel for applicant to adjourn the case after 1‑7‑1998, on the ground that he had intention to go to Northern area with his family but the learned Presiding Officer adjourned the case for 16‑6‑1998. On this date the affidavit could not be filed due to absence of counsel for applicant, therefore, the matter was adjourned for 20‑6‑1998. On this date as well affidavit could not be filed, as such, the learned trial Court imposed fine of Rs.300 upon the Company and the case was adjourned for 23‑3‑1998, for the said purpose. On this date an application was filed by the applicant along-with supporting affidavit whereby request was made for adjournment of case on 2nd July, 1998, on the ground that its counsel had gone to Northern area. The learned trial Court instead of adjourning the case closed the side of applicant and fixed the case for 30‑fi‑1998, for final arguments. On this date the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by applicant. Applicant being aggrieved and dissatisfied of above order has filed instant petition challenging the same. I have heard Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for applicant; whereas respondent No. l is present in person and Mr. Muhammad Noor, Assistant Advocate‑General represented the respondent No.2. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, Advocate vehemently argued that the learned trial Court erred while closing side of applicant because the counsel for applicant had proceeded to Northern area along-with his family and in this regard the learned Court was duly informed with further request to adjourn the case for 2‑7‑1998, enabling the applicant to file affidavit but the learned trial Court did not consider this aspect of the case which has caused serious injustice to the applicant. According to him the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the cases should be decided on merits instead of going into technicalities by the Court. He stressed that the circumstances in which the applicant could not file affidavit was beyond its control as its counsel was not present at Hub. Respondent No. 1 present in person and he submitted that the applicant's side was rightly closed because the applicant's counsel deliberately did not attend the Court. Mr. Muhammad Noor, Assistant Advocate‑General did not oppose the application and submitted that the justice demands that the applicant may be allowed to plead his case on merits. I have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case. It is to be observed that the counsel for applicant had already made request from the Court for adjournment of case after 1‑7‑1998, on the ground that he has intention to go to Northern area along-with his family. In this regard he also filed Reservation Slip of Pakistan Railway. Furthermore, perusal of impugned order indicates that no plausible reasons have been assigned by the learned Trial Court for closing side of applicant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in number of cases that the cases should be decided on merits instead of technicalities. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable under law, as such, is set aside. Consequently, applicant is allowed to lead evidence, if so desired. Application stands accepted. H.B.T./39/Lb.Q Revision application accepted.