1982 PLP 911 (PLC(CS))
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind] Versus MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS
| Citation | 1982 PLP 911 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | [Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind] Versus MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 911 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 911 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 911 (PLC(CS)) ([Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind] Versus MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Shafiullah v. Globe Textile Mills Ltd. 1981 P L C 304'ref. S. M. Kohistani for Appellant. Date of hearing: 21st January. 1982 This purports to be an appeal under section 37(3), I. R. O., against the order of the learned First Labour Court, dated 19th December, 1981 dismissing the application filed by the appellant for the restoration of his grievance petition which was dismissed on 27th October, 1981 on account of the non‑appearances of both the appellant and his learned representa tive. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Shafiullah v. Globe Textile Mills Ltd. (1981 P L C 304), that no appeal lies against interlocutory orders passed by Labour Courts, including order rejecting applications for resto ration of appeals which have been dismissed for non‑appearance and default. As such no appeal lies and can be entertained against the impugned order, dated 19th December, 1981 of the learned Labour Court.
2. The restoration application was filed two days after the appeal was dismissed for default and the ground taken in the restoration applica tion was that the appellant had misheard the date given by the Court and had understood it to be 28th October, 1981 instead of 27th October, 1981. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the restoration application on the sole ground that if the contention of the appellant was correct the restoration application should have been filed on 28th October, 1981. It may be pointed out that the restoration application was filed on 29th October, 1981. Apart from the fact that there is no legal requirement of law that the appellant should have filed the restoration application on 28th October, 1981 the date which he claims to have mis‑heard, the appellant would naturally require some time to get prepared his restora tion application and swear the affidavit in support of the restoration application. At any rate the appellant should have been given an opportunity of explaining why the restoration application was not filed on 28th October, 1981, this was not done.
3. I am, therefore, of the view that this matter is to be registered as a suo motu revision application and notice be issued to the parties to show cause why the impugned order be not revised in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal.