1984 PLP 917 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑Procedure‑‑Case adjourned for affidavit in evidence of petitioner‑Adjournment sought on ground that petitioner was out of station‑Adjournment of only seven days allowed and on next date again application for further adjournment on same ground refused and petition dismissed by Labour Court Application for restoration also dismissed ‑ Time allowed by Labour Court by adjournment for only seven days, in circum stances, held Dot sufficient for filing affidavit in evidence‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by Appellate Tribunal in suo motu revision and case remanded for decision after affording reasonable opportunity of evidence to parties. Manzoor Ahmed Qazi for Applicant. Kamal Mansur Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th September, 1983. An application under section 25‑A, I. R. O., was filed in Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, on 19th February, 1983 by the applicant against the respondent‑Pakistan Steel Mills. Reply statement was filed on 16th March, 1983. It was then adjourned to 26th March, 1983 for regular hearing. On this date Manzoor Ahmed Qazi, the learned counsel for the applicant made an application for adjournment on the ground that applicant was out of Karachi and, therefore, his affidavit in evidence could not be filed. The case was adjourned to 3rd April, 1983 for the affidavit in evidence of the applicant. On this date also Mr. Qazi, the learned counsel for the applicant, made an application for adjournment on the ground that the applicant was out of the city and, therefore, his affidavit in evidence could not be filed, it appears, obviously for the reason that the case was adjourned only after seven days, the applicant could not be available at Karachi as he was out of Karachi. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court rejected the application for adjourn ment and dismissed the application under section 25‑A, I. R. O., vide his order in the Order Sheet, dated 3rd April, 1983. On 24th April, 1983 an application for restoration was presented to the learned Presiding Officer, who adjourned it to 26th April, 1983. On this date the learned Presiding Officer on hearing the applicant in person dismissed the restoration application and refused to set aside the order of dismissal for non -prosecution of application under section 25‑A,

1. R. O. for the reason that the medical certificate on which the appellant had relied for his absence, on 3rd April, 1983 from the Court appeared to him to be managed. This order has been impugned in this suo motu revision under section 38 (3‑a), I. R. O.

2. I have heard Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Qazi for the applicant and Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam for the respondent. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application for non‑prosecution, on 3rd April, 1983 refusing to allow the adjournment to the applicant on that date, on the ground that sufficient time had been allowed to the applicant for filing the affidavit in evidence. I find from the record of the case as well as the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer on the Order Sheet that the application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. had been fixed for regular hearing for the first time on 26th March, 1983 and, therefore, was adjourned on the application of the applicant only after seven days Piz. 3rd April, 1983. on which date further application for adjournment was rejected and application dismissed for non‑prosecution. It appears that the applicant was out of station as already prayed in‑ the application for adjournment, on 26th March, 1983 had not returned to Karachi, and, therefore, his learned counsel appears to have made an application for adjournment on the same ground on 3rd April, 1983 which was dis allowed by the learned Labour Court and the application under section 25‑A, dismissed for non‑prosecution. Thus, the time allowed by the learned Labour Court to the applicant for filing an affidavit in evidence does not appear to be reasonable in the circumstances of the case, to support the reason assigned in the order, rejecting the adjournment application and dismissing the case for non‑prosecution. What I further find that on presentation of an application for restoration, on 24th April, 1983 by the applicant, the other side was not given a notice for hearing when the matter was adjourned to 26th April. 1983 on which date the impugn ed order was passed. In my view, the applicant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to file his affidavit in evidence to put forth his case before the learned Labour Court Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent has also agreed with me so far that aspect of the case is concerned.

3. The impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is, accordingly, set aside and the case is remanded to Labour Court for allowing p reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence and then dispose `of the application filed under section 25‑A, according to law. The revision application is allowed accordingly. A. E, Revision accepted.