1988 PLP 599 (PLC(CS))

for restoration of grievance petition, held, though not appealable yet Tribunal was not barred to exercise suo motu powers of revision where application was dismissed in‑default not for any gross negligence of applicant‑‑Labour Court shifted to some other location Applicant going on date fixed to building where Court used to be held previously and had taken pains to trace out the Court‑‑Applicant, in circumstances, could not be said to be guilty of any gross negligence‑ Order of Labour Court dismissing in‑default application for restoration of application for restoration of grievance petition was set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision and case remanded to Labour Court for decision of restoration of grievance petition on merits. 1986 P L C 187; 1981 P L C 304 and 1983 P L C 587 Distinguished. Maqbool Anees for Appellant. Abdul Rashid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1986. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 6‑2‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan dismissing the application of the petitioner for restoration of the application for the restoration of the grievance petition is wrong and improper.

2. The grievance petition brought by the petitioner was dismissed in‑default on 6‑10‑1983. An application for the restoration of the same was brought which too was dismissed in‑default on 21‑4‑1984. An application for its restoration has been refused by the impugned order. The ground for non-appearance on 21‑4‑1984 is that the Court had shifted to Wilayatabad Colony and no notice was seen at the old building of the Court indicating where the Court had been shifted. In support of the application for the restoration the petitioner appeared as his own witness and deposed that he had gone to Gulgasht but found the building in which the Labour Court‑ used to be held locked where he waited upto 11 a. m. thinking that the Court may start functioning late, but when nobody came he went to the District Courts to his counsel but there he found Mr. Aziz Niazi who informed him that his counsel had gone to Bahawalpur. He further stated that he could not locate the Court on the said day and when on the following day he went to the Court he learnt that his case had been dismissed in‑default. To rebut the evidence of the petitioner, the respondent examined Mr. Abdul Razzaq, Reader of the Court, Mr. Ali Raza, Naib Qasid, and Mr. Qasim Jaffary, Staff Reporter of the respondent paper. R . Ws 1 and 2 deposed that notice was affixed at the old building indicating that the Court had shifted to Wilayatabad. R. W.3 deposed that he had found a notice hanging at the building in Gulgasht on 21‑4‑1984 at 8 a.m. informing that the Court had been shifted to Wilayatabad, whereupon he went to the new premises of the Court but he did not find the petitioner and his counsel there. Muhammad Sadiq R.W.4 deposed that the petitioner never visited Maqbool Ahmad till he occupied the Chaubara on rent. The two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 stated only this much that notice was affixed at the old building but they did not say that the said notice was affixed at a very conspicuous place. If R.W.2 happened to see notice, it is not necessary that the petitioner could have found it. Apart from it many notices and cause lists are affixed at the premises where a Court is held and unless a person already knows that the Court has shifted from that building, he would not care to inspect the notices. The petitioner did not before hand know that the Court had shifted, therefore, he may not have cared to read the notice. The Reader and the peon did not say that the notice was of extraordinary nature written in big letters. R.W.4 said that he never saw the petitioner visiting Maqbool Ahmad. It cannot be presumed that Muhammad Sadiq R.W.4 remained present at the building 24 hours where NIaqbool Ahmad was residing. The possibility cannot be excluded that at the time the petitioner had gone there P.W.4 may not be present at that time.

3. Since the petitioner had gone to the building where the Court used to be held previously and had taken pains to trace out the Court, it cannot be said that he was guilty of any gross negligence. 1986 P L C 187 and 1981 P L C 304 have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent but they are not helpful because only this much was held in the said rulings that no appeal lay against an order dismissing the application for the restoration of the application for the restoration of the grievance petition. No doubt appeal does A not lie against such orders, but the appeal can be treated as revision. If the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal did not deem it proper to treat the appeal as revision, it does not mean that this Tribunal should not exercise suo motu powers of revision in cases where not for any gross negligence of the party its application had been dismissal in default. 1983 P L C 587 has also been cited by the learner counsel for the respondent but the same is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the said case the plea was that the date of hearing was wrongly noted down and no diary was produced in support of the contention. The petitioner had in reality made out a good case for restoration and the learned lower Court was not justified in rejecting the application.

4. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision of the restoration of the grievance petition on merits,. A.E./98/Lb.P Revision accepted,