1984 PLP 1723 (PLC(CS))
ABDUR RAUF Versus MESSRS INSHAALLAH MASHAALLAH WEAVING FACTORY. FAISALABAD
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1723 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUR RAUF Versus MESSRS INSHAALLAH MASHAALLAH WEAVING FACTORY. FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1723 (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 1723 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1723 (PLC(CS)) (ABDUR RAUF Versus MESSRS INSHAALLAH MASHAALLAH WEAVING FACTORY. FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38(3‑a)‑Practice and procedure‑Dismissal of grievance petition in default‑‑Restoration application also dismis sed by Labour Court‑Petitioner filing affidavit in support of resto ration application stating that date fixed was incorrectly heard and understood by him‑Labour Court placing reliance on statement of clerk of employer that petitioner though present outside Court room wilfully did not appear and thus dismissing restoration application‑Held: It is difficult to believe that petitioner seeking reinstatement with back benefits would purposely refrain from attending labour Court on fixed date hence no reliance could be placed on testimony of clerk of employer‑Appellate Tribunal in revision setting aside order of Labour Court, restoring grievance petition and remanding case to Labour Court for decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 30th May, 1978. This is a revision petition against the orders dated 15th November, 1977 and 22nd January, 1978 of Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad.
2. Abdur Rauf, petitioner, who was employed as a worker in Inshaallah Mashaallah Weaving Factory, was dismissed from service on 5th September, 1977. He filed a petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for reinstatement with back benefits. On 24th October, 1977 the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to go with the respondent's Munshi to the factory to resume duty. On that very day the respondent applied that the petitioner had refused to accompany him and had gone away. The case was adjourned to 15th November, 1977 on which date the petitioner was absent and so his petition was dismissed in default. On 16th November, 1977 the petitioner filed an application for the restoration of his petition alongwith the affidavit as is clear from the record. In that application it was mentioned that the reason why he did not attend the Court on 15th November, 1977 was that he had heard the date sired for 16th November, 1977.
3. The learned Labour Court, after recording evidence of the petitioner and Barkat Ali, Clerk of the respondent, did not accept the plea c the petitioner and dismissed his application on 22nd January, 1978.
4. Against the above orders, Abdur Rauf, petitioner has prefer this revision petition. On 20th March. 1978 the respondent, in spite o service, did not turn up and so an order of ex parte proceedings was passed against him.
5. On going through the record I find that the application for rest ration of the petition was accompanied by an affidavit, which fact ha wrongly been recorded in his evidence before the Labour Court that h, had not filed any affidavit alongwith the application, Barkat Ali, Clerk of the respondent, who appeared before the Labour Court, stated that or 15th November, 1977 the petitioner was present outside the Court room and wilfully did not appear before the Court. It appears that the Labour Court had placed reliance on the testimony of Barkat Ali and that is why, dismissed the application of the petitioner for restoration of hi; petition.
6. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner, who had filed a peti tion under section 25‑A for reinstatement with back benefits, would purposely refrain from attending the Court on 15th November, 1977. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Barkat Ali, Clerk of the respondent.
7. I, accordingly, accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the Labour Court, dated 15th November, 1977 and 22nd January, 19781 restore the original petition under section 25‑A filed by the petitioner and remand the case back to the Labour Court for decision on merits. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Labour Court on 10th June, 1978. A. E. Case remanded.