1976 PLP 279 (PLC)
FEROZSONS Versus RASHID TARIQ
| Citation | 1976 PLP 279 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court Punjabi |
| Bench Members | Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Rawalpindi |
| Parties | FEROZSONS Versus RASHID TARIQ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 279 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 279 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court Punjabi bench comprising: Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Rawalpindi.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 279 (PLC) (FEROZSONS Versus RASHID TARIQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Afial Siddlqui for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal with Sardar Liaqat Ali for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
S. 36-D read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 9 - --Dismissal of appeal in default-Restoration-Ground that counsel had no instructions though present in Court - Not sufficient for purposes of application for restoration. Muhammad Afial Siddlqui for Petitioner. M. Bilal with Sardar Liaqat Ali for Respondent. This is a petition under Order IX, rule 9, to get restored a petition filed for restoration of the appeal. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner filed an appeal against the respondent which was dismissed in default on 19-6-73 He filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 21-6-73 which petition was dismissed in default on 31-7-73. It is alleged by the petitioner that he filed a petition for restoration of the petition on the same day but it was not accepted by the then Presiding Officer for some technical defects. Any how he filed another petition for restoration of the petition dated 21-6-73 on 6-8-73. Prayer in this petition is that application for restoration of the appeal as well as appeal itself be restored and heard on merits. 3. The appeal wa3 dismissed as is alleged by the parties on a statement of the counsel to the effect that he has no instructions. 4. It is strange enough that the appeal was filed by the same appellant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling to the effect if a lawyer states that there are no instructions to him and party is not present for all practical purposes, it is to be assumed that lawyer is note present. It can be taken to be so only when lawyer has been newly engaged. But when appeal was filed by the counsel himself, he was very much in the know of the matter and his statement that he has no instructions means nothing. But refusal to argue or conduct the case and in that case instead of applying for restoration of the principle of article 168 of the Schedule of the Act, for which there is one month's limitation from the date of order. In the instant petition prayer is vague. If the petition for restoration is restored then question is whether the appeal should be restored or not, for which there is not limitation left now. 5. In view of the above discussion, petition for restoration of the appeal merits dismissal. It is hereby dismissed.