1990 PLP 490 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD IHSAN ULLAH Versus SUFI SOAP AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Ltd.
| Citation | 1990 PLP 490 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IHSAN ULLAH Versus SUFI SOAP AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Ltd. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 490 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 490 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 490 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD IHSAN ULLAH Versus SUFI SOAP AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Ltd.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.A.Hameed Awan for Petitioner.
- Mian Muhammad Saleem for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Dismissal of grievance petition in default‑‑‑Restoration of‑‑‑Non‑appearance due to illness of petitioner‑‑‑No medical certificate produced‑‑‑Application for restoration dismissed without opportunity of proving plea of illness‑‑‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held, was condemned unheard‑‑ Interference in revision found necessary‑‑Appellate Tribunal accepting revision and setting aside impugned order of dismissing application for restoration and remanded case for decision afresh after giving opportunity of evidence to parties. 1986 P L C 187 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision reporting that the order dated 9‑5‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby application for restoration of the petitioner was dismissed is wrong and improper.
2. The ground for non‑appearance given in the application for restoration was that the petitioner had fallen ill. So far as the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned the ground of his non‑appearance was that he had gone to Islamabad. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision and has argued that since no medical certificate was produced in support of illness, the petition for restoration was rightly dismissed. He relied upon 1986 P L C
187. The defect in the order of the learned lower Court is that no opportunity of proving the plea taken in the application for restoration was afforded to the petitioner before dismissing his petition. The petition was duly supported by an affidavit and if learned lower Court was not prepared to accept the affidavit then opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to produce evidence to prove that he had actually fallen ill and was unable to appear on the date fixed. This is true that no medical certificate was produced but if opportunity to produce evidence had been given to the petitioner, he may have produced medical certificate if any obtained by him with regard to his illness. Since the petitioner has been condemned unheard, interference in the impugned order of the learned lower Court appears to be necessary.
3. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the restoration application is remanded with the direction that after giving opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, it be decided afresh. A.E./381/Lb.P Revision accepted.