1988 PLP 374 (PLC)
Messrs COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another
| Citation | 1988 PLP 374 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Messrs COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 374 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 374 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 374 (PLC) (Messrs COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑S. 30‑‑Dismissal of appeal for non‑prosecution‑‑Restoration‑‑Neither Advocate of appellant nor anyone else present on behalf of appellant‑‑ No reasons explained in restoration application‑‑Restoration application dismissed‑‑Held: It is incumbent upon a party to pursue his own matter irrespective of fact that his Advocate appears or not‑‑Party should suffer for his laches.
- 4. I have heard Mr.Hameed M.Siddiqi, the learned Advocate for the appellants. The present appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 12‑4‑1987. An application alongwith an affidavit sworn by the learned Advocate, was filed for restoration of the appeal. The reasons shown in the affidavit are of personal nature of the learned Advocate for the appellants. There is no mention as to the fact that why and how none was present on behalf of the appellants. On 12‑4‑1987 neither the learned Advocate nor any one on behalf of the appellants Corporation was present in this Tribunal. No intimation was sent. It is incumbent upon a party to pursue his own matter irrespective of the fact that his Advocate appears or not. Therefore, the appellants should suffer for their laches. I see no reason to restore the order, dated 12‑4‑1987, dismissing the present appeal in limine. This restoration application is hereby dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Hameed M. Siddiqi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Corporation against an impugned order, dated 15‑10‑1986, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Central Division, Karachi, who had allowed the application, under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the respondent No. 1, directing the appellant Corporation to make the payment of Rs.7,464.
2. Brief facts of the case were that the respondent was employed by one contractor, namely, Khan Mir, respondent No.2 herein who was a contractor of the appellant Corporation and his job was to load and unload cotton bails to and from the trucks and stock them in the godown of the appellant Corporation and during the course of the employment, the respondent No.l claimed to have sustaind injuries on 16‑7‑1983. The respondent No.l further claimed that his average pay was Rs.450 to Rs.500 and due to the said accident, the assessment of the permanent disability was of 35$ as per Medical Certificate of Dr. A. K. Memon of Civil Hospital Karachi and his evidence before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, resulting in loss of earning capacity to the same extent.
3. The appellant Corporation and the respondent No.2 herein resisted the petition. However, after recording the evidence of both the parties and affording them a chance of cross‑examination the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.
4. I have heard Mr.Hameed M.Siddiqi, the learned Advocate for the appellants. The present appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 12‑4‑1987. An application alongwith an affidavit sworn by the learned Advocate, was filed for restoration of the appeal. The reasons shown in the affidavit are of personal nature of the learned Advocate for the appellants. There is no mention as to the fact that why and how none was present on behalf of the appellants. On 12‑4‑1987 neither the learned Advocate nor any one on behalf of the appellants Corporation was present in this Tribunal. No intimation was sent. It is incumbent upon a party to pursue his own matter irrespective of the fact that his Advocate appears or not. Therefore, the appellants should suffer for their laches. I see no reason to restore the order, dated 12‑4‑1987, dismissing the present appeal in limine. This restoration application is hereby dismissed.
5. The result is that the order of this Tribunal, dated 12‑4‑1987 is maintained and the present appeal is dismissed in limine. A.E. /1096/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.