1989 PLP 912 (PLC(CS))

Saleem Baig for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1985. The order dated 10‑7‑1085 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh one, is reported to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. On the ground that the grievance petition had been presented by the lawyer and not by the respondent himself, the learned lower Court allowed its withdrawal with permission to bring fresh petition. In response to the notice of appeal, application of the respondent was received that he being in jail serving R.I. for two years, was not in a position to defend himself against the appeal. It was prayed that the appeal be adjourned till he was released from the jail. He was informed by a fresh notice that the appeal could not be adjourned for such a long time. He was advised to engage a counsel but none appeared on the date fixed, nor any reply to the notice was received. So the appeal was heard ex parte.

3. The impugned order not being a decision delivered under section 25‑A, no appeal lies. However, the appeal has been treated as revision. A perusal of the file shows that there is no application, nor statement of the counsel for the respondent for withdrawal of the petition with permission to bring fresh one. In the end the learned lower Court has said in the impugned order that at this stage the counsel requested that instead of dismissing the petition, he may be allowed to withdraw it, so that the respondent could institute a fresh one on being released from jail. But no statement of the learned counsel was recorded. In the case of Muhammad Saleem, who too is in the jail, statement of the learned counsel is on the record but does not bear his signatures. It has been held in that case by me that the learned counsel had refused to put his signatures. It appears that since lawyer who was engaged in both the cases had refused to sign the statement, so m this case his statement was not recorded. The learned counsel did not take the responsibility to ask for withdrawal of the case with permission to bring fresh one because the respondent being in jail was not in a position to present the fresh grievance petition himself. Question of limitation too arises in such cases and this appears to be other reason for which the learned counsel for the respondent may not have in the absence of the respondent, asked for the withdrawal of the case with permission to bring fresh one. There being no prayer for withdrawal of the case, the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction to give in permission to bring fresh petition.

4. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded for disposal according to law. A.E./585/Lb. P Case remanded.