1989PLC616 (PLP)
FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another Versus SHABBIR HUSSAIN
| Citation | 1989PLC616 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another Versus SHABBIR HUSSAIN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989PLC616 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989PLC616 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989PLC616 (PLP) (FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another Versus SHABBIR HUSSAIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A.Javed for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1988.
- ‑‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal dismissed in default‑‑Petition for re‑admission moved‑‑Neither memo. of appeal nor petition for re‑admission signed by appellant‑‑Advocate signing appeal and petition was not authorised to do so by appellant and power of attorney was signed by an officer not so authorised by appellant‑‑Neither appeal nor petition for re‑admission, held, was competent.
- This is a petition for re‑admission of the appeal dismissed in default on 31‑5‑1988. An objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that neither the appeal nor the petition for re‑admission of the appeal has been made by the petitioners/appellants. Opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants to produce evidence to show that the appeal and the petition for re‑admission of the appeal are competent but he has made statement that he does not want to produce any evidence and would only lead arguments. As is apparent from the title the appellants/petitioners are; F.D.A. through its Director General and The Managing Director Water & Sanitation Agency, Faisalabad but the memo of the appeal and the petition for re‑admission of the appeal bear the signatures of MrAli Akbar Qureshi, Advocate and of none of the petitioners/appellants. The power of attorney in favour of the learned counsel too was not given by any of the petitioners/appellants. The power of attorney bears the signatures of Director Admin & Co‑ord. who is nether the appellant nor the petitioner. There is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioners/appellants had authorised the Director Admin. & Co‑ord. to engage a counsel for bringing the appeal and for lodging the petition for re‑admission of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants has argued that signatures of the appellants are not necessary on the appeal or on the application for re‑admission of the appeal. He has cited P L D 1967 Lah.807, P L D 1968 Lah.527 & P L D 1988 S C (AJ&K) 42. In the first mentioned ruling an advocate had been duly engaged by the appellants to file the appeal but that lawyer had not filed the appeal but had asked another, lawyer to do so. Apparently the ruling is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Here the learned counsel who had brought the appeal and the petition for re‑admission of the appeal with his own signatures has not been authorised by the petitioners/appellants in that behalf. The second mentioned ruling goes against the petitioners/appellants. It has been observed:‑
- According to the ruling since the memo of appeal and the petition for re admission of the appeal are neither signed by the petitioners/appellants nor the learned counsel who signed them was engaged by them, neither the appeal nor the petition can be said to have been brought either by the petitioners/appellants or by their authorised agent. The other cited ruling is P L D 1988 S C (AJ&K) 42. The ruling is of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir but too does not support the arguments of the learned counsel. It says that absence of the signatures of the plaintiff on the suit is an irregularity and can be cured at any stage. The defect had not been cured even though opportunity of producing evidence was given and the learned counsel has contented himself by leading arguments. There is no application from the petitioners/appellants for permission to sign the memo of the appeal or the petition for re‑admission of the appeal, nor there is any evidence that the petitioners/appellants had either authorised the Director Admin. & Co‑ ord. to appeal or to engage a counsel on their behalf nor the appellants/petitioners had engaged Mr.Ali Akbar Qureshi, advocate to sign the memo of appeal and the petition for re‑admission of the appeal, and to file the same. It, therefore, cannot be said that the appeal or the application for re admission of the appeal has been filed by the petitioners/appellants or that MrAli Akbar Qureshi, advocate, who brought them with his own signatures had been authorised by the petitioners/appellants in that behalf. So neither the petition for re‑admission of the appeal nor the appeal is competent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.37‑‑Appeal dismissed in default‑‑Petition for re‑admission moved‑‑Neither memo. of appeal nor petition for re‑admission signed by appellant‑‑Advocate signing appeal and petition was not authorised to do so by appellant and power of attorney was signed by an officer not so authorised by appellant‑‑Neither appeal nor petition for re‑admission, held, was competent. P L D 1967 Lah.807; P L D 1968 Lah.527 and P L D 1988 S C (A J & K) 42 ref.
Judgment & Decree
P L D 1967 Lah.807; P L D 1968 Lah.527 and P L D 1988 S C (A J & K) 42 ref. M.A.Javed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1988. This is a petition for re‑admission of the appeal dismissed in default on 31‑5‑1988. An objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that neither the appeal nor the petition for re‑admission of the appeal has been made by the petitioners/appellants. Opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants to produce evidence to show that the appeal and the petition for re‑admission of the appeal are competent but he has made statement that he does not want to produce any evidence and would only lead arguments. As is apparent from the title the appellants/petitioners are; F.D.A. through its Director General and The Managing Director Water & Sanitation Agency, Faisalabad but the memo of the appeal and the petition for re‑admission of the appeal bear the signatures of MrAli Akbar Qureshi, Advocate and of none of the petitioners/appellants. The power of attorney in favour of the learned counsel too was not given by any of the petitioners/appellants. The power of attorney bears the signatures of Director Admin & Co‑ord. who is nether the appellant nor the petitioner. There is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioners/appellants had authorised the Director Admin. & Co‑ord. to engage a counsel for bringing the appeal and for lodging the petition for re‑admission of the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants has argued that signatures of the appellants are not necessary on the appeal or on the application for re‑admission of the appeal. He has cited P L D 1967 Lah.807, P L D 1968 Lah.527 & P L D 1988 S C (AJ&K)
42. In the first mentioned ruling an advocate had been duly engaged by the appellants to file the appeal but that lawyer had not filed the appeal but had asked another, lawyer to do so. Apparently the ruling is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Here the learned counsel who had brought the appeal and the petition for re‑admission of the appeal with his own signatures has not been authorised by the petitioners/appellants in that behalf. The second mentioned ruling goes against the petitioners/appellants. It has been observed:‑ "Though of course when the rule requires that an election petition may be presented by any member of the Basic Democracy it means that it should be instituted by him and at his instance and no one else. If it be signed by him or by a duly constituted agent or attorney it would be by him and it could be presented by his duly authorised agent. In this case since the rules do not particularly require the signatures of and verification by the petitioner on it, the election petition could not have been thrown out on the ground that it was not signed and verified by the petitioner; but was signed and verified by his agent. Of course, if the petition is not signed by a member or by his duly authorised agent, it is not a petition by him and it could not be deemed to be a petition presented by him." According to the ruling since the memo of appeal and the petition for re admission of the appeal are neither signed by the petitioners/appellants nor the learned counsel who signed them was engaged by them, neither the appeal nor the petition can be said to have been brought either by the petitioners/appellants or by their authorised agent. The other cited ruling is P L D 1988 S C (AJ&K)
42. The ruling is of Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir but too does not support the arguments of the learned counsel. It says that absence of the signatures of the plaintiff on the suit is an irregularity and can be cured at any stage. The defect had not been cured even though opportunity of producing evidence was given and the learned counsel has contented himself by leading arguments. There is no application from the petitioners/appellants for permission to sign the memo of the appeal or the petition for re‑admission of the appeal, nor there is any evidence that the petitioners/appellants had either authorised the Director Admin. & Co‑ ord. to appeal or to engage a counsel on their behalf nor the appellants/petitioners had engaged Mr.Ali Akbar Qureshi, advocate to sign the memo of appeal and the petition for re‑admission of the appeal, and to file the same. It, therefore, cannot be said that the appeal or the application for re admission of the appeal has been filed by the petitioners/appellants or that MrAli Akbar Qureshi, advocate, who brought them with his own signatures had been authorised by the petitioners/appellants in that behalf. So neither the petition for re‑admission of the appeal nor the appeal is competent.
2. As a result the petition for re‑admission of the appeal is dismissed being incompetent. A.E./623/Lb.P Petition dismissed.