1986 PLP 639 (PLC(CS))
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus Mst. LEELA
| Citation | 1986 PLP 639 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus Mst. LEELA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 639 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 639 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: 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: 1986 PLP 639 (PLC(CS)) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus Mst. LEELA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Ex parte pro ceedings‑‑Decision not yet passed‑‑Proceedings yet at evidence stage‑ Case in, circumstances, held, fit for interference in revision and order of Labour Court dismissing application for setting aside ex parte proceeding set aside by Appellate Tribunal burdening applicant with costs of Rs.200.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. MN‑286 of 1985, decided on 28th January, 1986. ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Ex parte pro ceedings‑‑Decision not yet passed‑‑Proceedings yet at evidence stage‑ Case in, circumstances, held, fit for interference in revision and order of Labour Court dismissing application for setting aside ex parte proceeding set aside by Appellate Tribunal burdening applicant with costs of Rs.200. Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent. The order, dated 29‑6‑1985, whereby the petition of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte proceedings was dismissed is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect. On a previous date, the reason for non‑appearance of the counsel put before the learned lower Court was that the counsel had refused to conduct the cases. In the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, it was pleaded that the counsel was busy in the other Court. Whatever the reason may be, since ex parte decision has not been passed and plea of the respondent was not that the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings was time‑barred, it would have been in the fitness of things if the learned lower Court had set aside the ex parte proceedings. If the petitioner had shown negligence, it could be burdened with costs. Only one witness of the respondent had appeared and the petitioner wishes to cross‑examine her and to produce its own evidence. So far as evidence to be produced by the petitioner is concerned, the lower Court has allowed the same. The next date is fixed for this purpose. So the only difference by accepting this petition would be that the petitioner will cross‑examine the respondent. In these circumstances, it appears to be fit case for interference. I, accordingly, accept the revision and sell aside the impugned order on payment of Rs.200 as costs. A. E. Revision accepted.