1999 PLP 402 (PLC)

This is a revision application filed under section 38(3‑a) of the I.R.O., 1969 challenging the order, dated 5‑12‑1998 passed by the learned Labour Court on a miscellaneous application moved by the Applicant/Informant Which was dismissed on 5‑12‑1998.

2. The brief facts relevant for the revision are that the learned Labour Court No. l passed an ex parte order, dated 24‑9‑1998 whereby application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was allowed reinstating the Applicant/Informant with back benefits. The respondent No. l on 22‑10‑1998 filed a miscellaneous application for recalling the said ex parte order, dated 24‑9‑1998 supported by an affidavit. The reason for the absence of the respondent No.l on 24‑9‑1998 as stated in the affidavit was that "due to kidney problem to his father when was admitted in Agha Khan Hospital on the advice of the doctor where he was operated. He remained in the hospital up to 26‑8‑1998. During this period nobody except him (the deponent) was available to look after his father, for the reasons as stated in the affidavit he could not attend the Court on the date of hearing viz. 24‑9‑1998." It was further stated in the affidavit that my absence from the Court was neither intentional nor deliberate but beyond my control".

3. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties by its order, dated 21‑11‑1998 accepted the application and recalled his order, dated 24‑9‑1998 subject to the payment of Rs.400 by the respondent as costs to the applicant.

4. On 26‑11‑1998 the applicant made an application for recalling of the aforesaid order, dated 21‑11‑1998 which was dismissed by the learned Labour Court by his order, dated 5‑12‑1998 which has been impugned in this Revision.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. I am of the view that the order, dated 21‑11‑1998 setting aside the ex parte order, dated 24‑9‑1998 was quite legal and unexceptionable. Being aggrieved of the said order applicant/ informant filed an application for reversing the order dated 24‑9‑1998.

6. The learned Labour Court seems to be quite justified in the facts and circumstances of the case to dismiss the said miscellaneous application for reviewing its order. The order suffers from no infirmity and as such I refuse to exercise my suo motu revisional jurisdiction to revise the order impugned to the revision. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

7. Before parting with the matter it may , be observed that the respondent had filed an Appeal bearing No.347 of 1998 under section 37(3) of the I.R.O., 1969 for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 24‑9‑1998. The said appeal was fixed for Katcha Peshi on 26‑1‑1999 but the same was withdrawn by the learned counsel making the statement at the bar that the ex parte order against which the revision has been filed has already been withdrawn by the learned Labour Court No. l by its order, dated 21‑11‑1998. The said revision was dismissed as being infructuous.

8. Let it be added that Mr. Mehboob Rizvi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the case had been fixed for cross‑examination of the applicant on a number of dates but he did not appear. The case appears to have been filed on 16‑12‑1997. It has already taken more than a year therefore, direct the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Karachi to complete the hearing of the case expeditiously within three months from the date of this judgment. Announced in open Court this 9th day of February, 1999. H.B.T./309/K/Lab. (Trib.)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Revision dismissed.