1989 PLC 119 (PLP)

‑‑‑Ss. 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Case adjourned for evidence of petitioner and notices sent to parties‑‑Witnesses not produced and Labour Court closing case of petitioner‑‑Plea that Labour Court had been informed that witnesses were on way to Court and had actually reached after impugned order of closing case was passed‑‑No written request made to that effect to Labour Court‑‑Interference in revision, refused by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Labour Court however was directed to receive documents in evidence which may be tendered by counsel of petitioner in his statement if such documents were such as could be admitted in evidence on being tendered. Javed Altaf for Petitioner. Kh. Tariq Masood for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1987. The revision captioned above reports that the order dated 27‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala is of no legal effect whereby the case of the petitioner was closed.

2. The order sheet shows that the first date for the production of the evidence of the petitioner was 17‑2‑1987 and thereafter the case was adjourned on several dates for the‑ evidence of the petitioner. However, on 7‑4‑1987 the learned Presiding Officer was not available. On 12‑5‑1987 the learned Presiding Officer was present and the case was adjourned to 15‑7‑1987 for the evidence of the respondent. On 15‑7‑1987 again the case was adjourned to 8‑8‑198 7 as the petitioner had not brought evidence. 8‑8‑1987 happened to be holiday, therefore, on 9‑8‑1987 the case was adjourned to 27‑9‑1987 for evidence of the respondent and notices to the parties were sent. On 27‑9‑1987 also the evidence of the petitioner was not present, therefore, the case was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the case of the petitioner was closed at about 10‑15 a.m. in spite of the fact that the learned Presiding Officer, was informed that the witnesses were on the way to the Court. No such thing is recorded in the impugned order. He also argues that actually the witnesses had reached after the case was closed and adjourned for arguments. Enquiry has been made from Mr, Muhammad Yaqoob who says that he after the case was closed he had left the Court and he is not in a position to say whether the witnesses had reached or not. If this was the fact the learned counsel should have made an application to the learned lower Court apprising it of the fact that the witnesses had reached. In the absence of any such written request it is difficult to say that in reality, after the case was closed, the witnesses had reached. Sufficient opportunities were allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence, therefore, there appears to be no scope to interfere with the impugned order. However, learned lower Court is directed to A receive the documents in evidence which may be tendered by the learned counsel in his statement if the documents are such that they can be admitted in evidence by being tendered. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. A.E./460/Lb. P Order accordingly.