1983 PLP 587 (PLC)
LIAQAT ALI Versus MESSRS PACKAGES LTD.
| Citation | 1983 PLP 587 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI Versus MESSRS PACKAGES LTD. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 587 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 587 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 587 (PLC) (LIAQAT ALI Versus MESSRS PACKAGES LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G. Haider Alghazali for Appellant.
- Mian Muhammad Yasin for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 1st January. 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 25‑A‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, r. 4 Grievance petition‑Dismissed for default‑Restoration application stressed on grounds that different hearing date erroneously noted down‑No diary containing such recorded date produced‑Restora tion application, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal arises from the decision dated18‑1‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the petition for restoration of the grievance. petition dismissed in default on 5‑8‑1981 was dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant was fixed on 5‑8‑1981 for evidence. On the said date the counsel for the appellant namely, Mr. Har4id Ali Mirza informed the court that he had no instructions to prosecute the case and requested that he be allowed to withdraw it. The appellant had not appeared, therefore the case was dismissed for non‑prosecution.
3. The ground given by the appellant in his petition .for restoration was that he had by mistake noted down the date as 5‑10‑1981 and had come to know about the dismissal of the case on 5‑10‑1981. Application for restoration was given on 2‑11‑1981 supported by an affidavit. On behalf of the respondent a counter‑affidavit was filed. No diary, its copy; brief or its copy was produced to show that actually the date was noted down wrongly. The appellant. knew that the plea taken by him was that he had noted down the date wrongly, so he could have realised anti counsel also must have advised him to produce the diary or the brief. Thus the very plea that the appellant had wrongly noted down the date is false or at least stands disproved. The petition for restoration was, therefore, rightly dismissed. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed,