2013 PLP 44 (PLC)
PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager, Islamabad Versus WASIM QAISER
| Citation | 2013 PLP 44 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman |
| Parties | PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager, Islamabad Versus WASIM QAISER |
| Primary Law | Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 44 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 44 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Cheema, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 44 (PLC) (PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager, Islamabad Versus WASIM QAISER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 47---Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution---Application for restoration of appeal---Appeal was pending adjudication before the High Court in absence of the Tribunal---Appeal was transferred to the Tribunal on its re-establishment---Appeal continued to be pending, but no one appeared on behalf of the appellant for more than one year and Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution---Appellant/ applicant went into deep slumber and filed an application for restoration of appeal almost after a year---Effect---Huge delay of more than one year had not at all been explained properly---Law required each day's delay to be explained, but no cogent or confidence inspiring explanation was given for such delay---Submission of counsel for appellant was that advocate who was incharge of the case prior to the entrustment of appeal to other counsel, did not properly pursue the matter and did not inform about the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution in time---Counsel had contended that delay being not intentional or deliberate, same could be condoned---Such contention was repelled as it was the requirement of law that if the counsel lately engaged in the case was not present, counsel engaged earlier should have taken charge of the case and should have appeared---Even otherwise, if the counsel for the appellant could not appear on the given date before the court, duty was cast upon the appellant to appear in the absence of counsel---Appellant was not absolved from appearance in the court---Applicant/appellant having failed to show any reasonable, cogent or plausible explanation for the absence of his counsel or for himself, application for restoration of appeal, was dismissed, in circumstances.
- Bilal Munir for Appellant.
- Mirza Muhammad Afzal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 2012.
- 3. The appellant/applicant went into deep slumber and filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 23-1-2012 almost after a year which was strongly opposed by the respondents on the ground that there is no justification to condone such a huge and colossal delay. It was added that in this case the power of attorney has been filed by the three learned Advocates but none appeared on the date fixed by the Tribunal. Subsequently Mirza Amir Baig also joined the array of Advocates but none appeared on the given date.
- 4. Mr. Bilal Munir, Advocate appearing for counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted that the learned advocate who was the incharge of the case prior to the entrustment of the appeal to Mirza Amir Baig did not properly pursue the matter and also did not inform about the dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution in time. As such the delay was not intentional or deliberate and may be condoned.
- "4. In this case, irrespective of Mr. Gohar Iqbal Advocate, Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate was also engaged for appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the learned High Court. On the said date of hearing neither Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate nor Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate, or Syed Junaid Akhtar, attorney of the petitioner appeared before the learned High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the affidavit of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate, that since he had to appear in the instant case, as such, Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate or attorney was not supposed to appear. We are not agreed with the above contention. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate being counsel of the petitioner was equally responsible to explain his absence and file affidavit to explain his absence and support the ground of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate. Even otherwise, the attorney of the petitioner was also equally responsible to pursue his case. This Court in the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and another (1974 SCMR 162) held that mere engagement of a counsel will not absolve the litigating party to pursue its case diligently and in case the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, not only absence of the counsel is to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court, but also the absence of the appellant who is equally responsible for pursuing the case should be explained."
Headnotes / Summary
Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Secretary Government of the Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Development, Lahore and another 2006 SCMR 783; PLD 2008 SC 130 and Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and another 1974 SCMR 162 rel.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).
This application seeks the restoration of the appeal dismissed for non prosecution on 20-1-2011.
2. The background of this application is that the main appeal in the first instance was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court in the absence of the Tribunal and on the re-establishment of the Tribunal it was transferred to this court and was listed for hearing on 23-11-2009. The appeal continued to be pending. However none appeared on behalf of the appellant/applicant on 20-1-2011 and the court was obliged to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution.
3. The appellant/applicant went into deep slumber and filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 23-1-2012 almost after a year which was strongly opposed by the respondents on the ground that there is no justification to condone such a huge and colossal delay. It was added that in this case the power of attorney has been filed by the three learned Advocates but none appeared on the date fixed by the Tribunal. Subsequently Mirza Amir Baig also joined the array of Advocates but none appeared on the given date.
4. Mr. Bilal Munir, Advocate appearing for counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted that the learned advocate who was the incharge of the case prior to the entrustment of the appeal to Mirza Amir Baig did not properly pursue the matter and also did not inform about the dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution in time. As such the delay was not intentional or deliberate and may be condoned.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. In this case the record shows that the copy of the order dated 20-1-2011 was applied for on the same date as such it can safely be presumed that the copy was provided to the applicant/appellant within a few days after the order of non-prosecution. This huge delay of one year has not at all been explained properly. The law requires each day's delay is to be explained but there is no cogent or confidence inspiring explanation for the huge delay of one year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as 2006 SCMR 783 (Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Secretary Government of the Punjab Housing and Physical Planning Development, Lahore and another) observed as under:
"It is a settled principal of law that the question of limitation under section 46 of the I.R.O. has to be rigidly construed on the well-known maxim that no party is allowed to circumvent the provisions of the statute of limitation. It is yet another principle of law that the party approaching Court of competent jurisdiction for redress of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side." Even otherwise, in this case it was the requirement of law that if the counsel lately engaged in this case was not present the counsel engaged earlier should have taken charge of the case and should have appeared. Even otherwise if the learned counsel for the appellant could not appear on the given date before the Court, the duty was cast upon the appellant department to appear in the absence of their counsel and as such they were not absolved from appearance in the court. It has been ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 2008 SC 130 read with Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and another 1974 SCMR
162. In an identical situation their Lordships repelled the assertion of the petitioners and ruled:
"
4. In this case, irrespective of Mr. Gohar Iqbal Advocate, Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate was also engaged for appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the learned High Court. On the said date of hearing neither Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate nor Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate, or Syed Junaid Akhtar, attorney of the petitioner appeared before the learned High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the affidavit of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate, that since he had to appear in the instant case, as such, Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate or attorney was not supposed to appear. We are not agreed with the above contention. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate being counsel of the petitioner was equally responsible to explain his absence and file affidavit to explain his absence and support the ground of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate. Even otherwise, the attorney of the petitioner was also equally responsible to pursue his case. This Court in the case of Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and another (1974 SCMR 162) held that mere engagement of a counsel will not absolve the litigating party to pursue its case diligently and in case the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, not only absence of the counsel is to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court, but also the absence of the appellant who is equally responsible for pursuing the case should be explained." The applicant/appellant has failed to show any reasonable, cogent or plausible explanation for the absence of his counsel or for himself even. The applicant has to explain satisfactorily each day's delay to the court of competent jurisdiction.
7. In this view of the matter I am left with no other option but to dismiss the application for restoration of the appeal. The parties are left to bear their own costs. HBT/16/PLT Application dismissed.