2000 PLP 191 (PLC)

M:A.K. Azmati for Applicant. Masood A. Khan for Respondents This is a revision application under section 38(3‑A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the order, dated 22‑1‑1999, passed by tine learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.4, Karachi, on application for setting aside/recalling the order, dated 27‑10‑1998, whereby the said application was, dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under section 25‑A, of I.R.O., 1969 for reinstatement with back benefits. The said application bearing No.27 of 1997, after a number of preliminary dates was fixed for 21‑10‑1997, when the applicant filed his affidavit‑in- evidence and the case was put off to 3‑11‑1997 for cross‑examination of the applicant. The case was then put off to 24‑11‑1997 for cross‑examination of the applicant as the Stenographer of the Court was not well and so was the position on 24‑11‑1997 as the Stenographer was on leave. The case was then put off to 15‑12‑1997 when the applicant was called absent though his counsel was present. The matter was adjourned to 20‑1‑1998, again, for the cross‑examination of the applicant as a last chance. On 25‑3‑1998, the counsel of the parties were present, but the applicant was called absent. The matter, was therefore, put off to 23‑4‑1998. On that day, both applicant and his counsel called absent. However, the learned Presiding Officer adjourned the case in the interest of justice for 15‑5‑1998 for cross‑examination of the applicant. On 15‑5‑1998, again, the applicant was called absent. However, an application for adjournment was moved by his counsel and the matter was adjourned to 1‑7‑1998 for cross examination of the applicant, again, as a last chance. The matter came up before the learned Presiding Officer on 30‑7‑1998 when the applicant and his counsel both were absent. The learned Presiding Officer, observed in his order that, "in the interest of justice one more chance is given to the applicant and the matter was put off to 26‑8‑1998 for same purpose" i.e. for cross‑examination. On 26‑8‑1998, again, the applicant was called absent, but his advocate made a statement at the bar that, "the applicant is not in contact with him". He undertook to issue a notice to him informing the date of hearing. He, then, requested for time and so the matter was put off to 24‑9‑1998. This being a longer date, to enable the learned counsel for the applicant to inform the applicant and make him available in the Court for cross‑examination. But this long date, too, proved to be futile, as the applicant was again absent. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, requested the learned Presiding Officer for adjournment, which was consented to by the learned counsel for the other side and so one more opportunity was granted as a last chance. The words, "one more" was added to it, and the case was adjourned to 27‑10‑1998 again for cross -examination of the applicant, 27‑10‑1998 appears to be crucial date, when applicant and his counsel were called absent. No intimation was received from their side. The learned Presiding Officer observed that "the applicant has failed to appear though the last chance was granted for his evidence to be recorded". In the circumstances, it was thus held that, "under the above circumstances and looking to the case diaries, I feel the applicant has ‑no more interest in the present case. Accordingly, it is dismissed in default for non‑prosecution". Thereafter, the applicant's counsel moved an application on 19‑11‑1998 for recalling the said order. The said application was heard by the learned Presiding Officer and was dismissed by his order, dated 22‑1‑1999, against which, the above revision has been filed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the diaries with their assistance. It appears that about thirteen chances were given to the applicant for presenting himself for cross- examination, but in vain. It took more than a year and the learned Presiding Offices was left with no option, but to dismiss the case for non-prosecution. In the application for recalling the order, it was, inter alia, alleged that due to law and order situation in Karachi, the applicant had left for Punjab. I asked the applicant, present in Court, as to why he left for Punjab, he said that his father was ill and he had gone to see him. Whereas, in the application he has stated, on oath, that he left Karachi, in view of the prevailing condition of law and order in the City. On going through the record, I feel that the learned Presiding Officer was very much lenient and kind to .the applicant in granting "opportunity after opportunity" even to the extent of ignoring the sanctity of his own observation of "last chance", not once but five times. As already comes on record, that the learned counsel for the applicant had lost contact with his client. In fact, he sent letter to the applicant under registered post, copy whereof, with the postal receipt, has been placed on file. So I do not put any blame on the learned counsel for applicant, but the conduct of the applicant; himself, is that gross negligence. The law favours vigilant and not negligent.

4. Mr. Masood Khan, learned counsel for the respondent placed his reliance on Sultan Khan and another v. Messers Globe Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi (1980 PLC 863) wherein a former Chairman of this Tribunal Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Z.A. Channa, held that the "conduct of the petitioner seeking adjournments repeatedly prior to dismissal of the case in default rightly deserves rejection of restoration application". It is the duty of the client to contact his advocate.

5. In result, I find no substance in the revision application, which dismissed. Announced in open Court, this the 19th day of March, 1999. H.B.T./281/K/Lab. (Trib.) Revision dismissed.