1998 PLP 137 (PLC)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----S. 25-A---Grievance petition---Dismissal for non-prosecution-- Restoration--- Grievance petition filed by employee under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for reinstatement of his service and back benefits was dismissed for non-prosecution as employee and his counsel were called absent on date of hearing of petition---Application for restoration of grievance petition was filed by employee after about eleven months from dismissal of grievance petition on ground of illness of employee- --Employee did not move application for condonation of delay and medical certificate filed by employee in support of application for restoration of grievance petition was also vague as it did not show condition of patient/employee, his case history and treatment given to him, but was generally showing condition of employee as being psycho-somatic---In the absence of any application for condonation of delay showing sufficient cause for non-appearance of employee and his counsel on date of hearing, application for restoration of grievance petition which was barred by ten months, was liable to be dismissed.
• Muhammad Tasnim for Respondent.
• Date of hearing: 9th April, 1997.
• The respondent was employed by Pakistan Steel Mills. He had filed petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. for reinstatement and back benefits. On the date of hearing the respondent and his Advocate were called absent and the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. After about 11 months an application for restoration was moved on the ground that the delay was on account of the illness of the petitioner. A Medical Certificate of Dr. Ahmed Ali Khan was produced showing that the petitioner was under treatment for pyscho-somatic condition. Dr. Ahmed Ali Khan has certified that the respondent was being treated with effect from 23-4-1995 for pyscho-somatic condition and he had fully recovered on the date of the certificate namely 13-3-1996. The Application for Restoration was filed on 19-3-1996 when default was committed on 26-4-1995. The patient started treatment three days before the date of hearing. The Medical Officer has not specifically mentioned the condition of the patient but has generally shown his condition as being pyscho-somatic.
• 3. In the present case the Restoration Application without an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was not competent in the absence of an application for condonation of delay. Delay for each day had to be accounted for during the 11 months. It is not known whether the disease that the petitioner was suffering from, disabled him completely or the fits came at intervals allowing him sufficient time to contact his Advocate and instruct him for moving the Labour Court to condone his non-appearance. The Medical Certificate being vague and not specific nothing can be said what the pyscho-somatic condition was and without further diagnosis, case history and treatment that was being given to him. In the absence of any application for condoning the delay the question of condonation does not arise. Apparently the Restoration Application is time-barred by 10 months. Since each day's delay has to be explained it was not within the discretion of the Trial Court, to admit the Restoration Application.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree