1977 PLP 280(1) (PLC)
GUL.ZAR HUSSAIN AWAN Versus DR. S. SAJID MAHMOOD
| Citation | 1977 PLP 280(1) (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | GUL.ZAR HUSSAIN AWAN Versus DR. S. SAJID MAHMOOD |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 280(1) (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 280(1) (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 280(1) (PLC) (GUL.ZAR HUSSAIN AWAN Versus DR. S. SAJID MAHMOOD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masood Sheryar for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Choudhry Maarif for Appellant. Masood Sheryar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th November 1976. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.
2. The appellant was removed from service. He approached Labour Court after serving the required grievance notice. The application was resisted.
3. The appellant had filed his affidavit in support of his case but did not appear for cross-examination for four times. Consequently, the Labour Court took the view that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the petition and rejected the application for adjournment made on his behalf. Since there being no evidence, the application filed under section 25-A, I. R. O. was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
4. I have heard the learned Representative for the appellant and I am of the view that the learned Presiding Officer was fully justified in rejecting the adjournment application and proceeding to pass the impugned order. The appellant was required to appear for cross-examination but he remained absent, although, four opportunities were allowed to him. From the order of the Labour Court it appears that the appellant even failed to contact his representative. Consequently, there was no ground for adjournment.