1993 PLP 719 (PLC(CS))
PAKISTAN STEEL Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR
| Citation | 1993 PLP 719 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN STEEL Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 719 (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 1993 PLP 719 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 719 (PLC(CS)) (PAKISTAN STEEL Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th April, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 38‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Dismissal in default‑‑‑Restoration of‑‑‑Appellant contended that appeal was dismissed in default as his counsel could not appear at the time when case was called as he had his other case before High Court‑‑ Fact that counsel had case in another Court, was no ground not to pursue other professional engagements elsewhere diligently‑‑‑Appellant otherwise failed to prove that his counsel was busy in another Court‑‑‑Facts mentioned‑ in the affidavit filed by employer that case in which counsel of appellant was shown to have appeared in the High Court did not proceed and was adjourned on the request of parties, were not controverted by appellant‑‑‑No sufficient cause having been made out to restore appeal, application for restoration of appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th April, 1992. This is an application for the restoration of an appeal which was dismissed in default on the 1st of March, 1993.
2. It is alleged that the learned counsel for the appellant could not turn up before 12‑15 hours as he had a matter before the High Court.
3. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi has filed a counter‑affidavit in which it has been said that the matter fixed in the High Court had not proceeded at all and he has filed a copy of the `Order Sheet' in that case where the adjournment was by consent of the lawyers.
4. It is also alleged in the counter‑affidavit that the learned Single Judge before whom the matter was fixed was also a Member of a Division Bench which had eight cases listed before it that day, and the practice in the High Court is that the Division Bench sittings take precedence. The Cause List also shows the sittings of the Division Bench at 8‑15 in the morning. There is a rejoinder filed but the facts mentioned in the counter‑affidavit have not been controverted.
5. The fact that there was a matter of a counsel listed in some other Court is no ground not to pursue other professional engagements elsewhere diligently. It is alleged that the learned counsel had turned up at 12‑15 but no application for restoration was made on that day.
6. I am afraid no premium can be placed on such a non‑chalant attitude, and to my mind no sufficient cause had been made out, to restore the appeal. I will, therefore, dismiss the application. H.B.T./2192/Lb.S Application dismissed.