1984 PLP 1168 (PLC(CS))
UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Versus GULZAR AHMAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1168 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Versus GULZAR AHMAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1168 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1168 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1168 (PLC(CS)) (UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Versus GULZAR AHMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Nazar‑ud‑Din for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 17th May, 1981.
- This is a petition for readmission of the appeal brought by the Utility Stores Corporation against Gulzar Ahmad, dismissed in default on 28th December, 1980. The petition for readmission for the appellant was filed on 12th January, 1981. The only ground given in the petition is that the learned counsel for the petitioner had inadvertently noted down the next date of hearing of the appeal in his diary as 10th January, 1981 instead of 20th December, 1980 and thus was prevented from appearing in the appeal on the date actually fixed in the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit but the affidavit is not of the lawyer who is alleged to have inadvertently noted down the date in his diary as 10th January, 1981. Even the diary in which the date is alleged to have been wrongly entered has not been produced by way of evidence. The date previous to 20th December, 1980 was 27th September, 1980 and on the said date the presence of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Advocate only counsel for the appellant is recorded meaning that the person who gave the affidavit was not present on the said date, therefore, he could not have the know ledge that the date had been inadvertently recorded wrongly in the diary. I, therefore, cannot accept and act upon the said affidavit. It does not stand proved that in reality the learned counsel for the petitioner had wrongly noted down the date in his diary and thus was prevented from appearing on 20th December, 1980. No cogent ground proved for the re‑admission of the appeal. The petition for readmission, therefore, is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 37‑Appeal‑Dismissed in default‑Application for readmis sion‑Grounds that date fixed for hearing noted by counsel in advertently‑Affidavit in support of application given by person other than the counsel who allegedly noted incorrect date‑Appli cation, in circumstances, dismissed. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 37‑Appeal‑Dismissed in default‑Application for readmis sion‑Grounds that date fixed for hearing noted by counsel in advertently‑Affidavit in support of application given by person other than the counsel who allegedly noted incorrect date‑Appli cation, in circumstances, dismissed. Ch. Muhammad Nazar‑ud‑Din for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 17th May, 1981. This is a petition for readmission of the appeal brought by the Utility Stores Corporation against Gulzar Ahmad, dismissed in default on 28th December, 1980. The petition for readmission for the appellant was filed on 12th January, 1981. The only ground given in the petition is that the learned counsel for the petitioner had inadvertently noted down the next date of hearing of the appeal in his diary as 10th January, 1981 instead of 20th December, 1980 and thus was prevented from appearing in the appeal on the date actually fixed in the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit but the affidavit is not of the lawyer who is alleged to have inadvertently noted down the date in his diary as 10th January, 1981. Even the diary in which the date is alleged to have been wrongly entered has not been produced by way of evidence. The date previous to 20th December, 1980 was 27th September, 1980 and on the said date the presence of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Advocate only counsel for the appellant is recorded meaning that the person who gave the affidavit was not present on the said date, therefore, he could not have the know ledge that the date had been inadvertently recorded wrongly in the diary. I, therefore, cannot accept and act upon the said affidavit. It does not stand proved that in reality the learned counsel for the petitioner had wrongly noted down the date in his diary and thus was prevented from appearing on 20th December, 1980. No cogent ground proved for the re‑admission of the appeal. The petition for readmission, therefore, is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.