1989 PLP 825 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36, 37 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Appeal‑‑Revision‑‑Ex parte proceedings‑‑Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings‑‑Presiding Officer on leave on date of hearing and case adjourned by Reader to an other date in absence of party‑‑Party not appearing on such date and application dismissed in default‑‑Order not appealable‑‑Appellate Tribunal treating appeal as revision set aside order of Labour Court and case remanded to Labour Court‑ Held: Since Presiding Officer was on leave on date of hearing, notice of fresh date should have been issued to party and application for setting aside ex parte proceedings could have been dismissed in default if party had failed to appear despite notice. Raja Abdul Rashid for Appellant. Malik Mehrban for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th January, 1988. The appeal captioned above challenges the order dated 27‑10‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decision has been dismissed.

2. Since by the order dated 27‑10‑1987 the grievance petition brought under section25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had not been decided, he order is not appealable. However, since the said order is wrong and not sustainable, the appeal is treated as revision petition.

3. The petition of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was fixed on 24‑8‑1987 but none had appeared on the said date. It was not dismissed in default and rather was adjourned to 3‑9‑1987. On the adjourned date the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the reader adjourned the case in the absence of the petitioner to 15‑9‑1987 and on the said date the learned lower Court dismissed that petition in default and decided the case ex parte. Since on 3‑9‑1987 learned Presiding Officer was on leave, notice should have been issued to the appellant for 15‑9‑1987 and if he had not appeared in spite of service of notice only then his petition for setting aside ex parte proceedings could be dismissed in default. The petitioner had no knowledge of the date of 15‑9‑1987, therefore, his non‑appearance was not actionable. In these circumstances the learned lower Court should have set aside the ex parte decision and restoring the application for setting aside ex pate proceeding should have decided it on merits.

4. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the orders dated 27‑10‑1987 and ex parte decision dated 15‑9‑1987 and restoring the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, the case is remanded and the learned lower Court is directed to decide the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. If the learned lower Court accepts the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, it shall invite written statement from the appellant and after affording opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence, the grievance petition shall be decided on merits. A.E./507/Lb.P Revision accepted.