1984 PLP 609 (PLC(CS))
REHMAT GUL Versus DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, I. C. I. PAKISTAN MANUFACTURER LTD., SHADHARA
| Citation | 1984 PLP 609 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHMAT GUL Versus DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, I. C. I. PAKISTAN MANUFACTURER LTD., SHADHARA |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 609 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 609 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 609 (PLC(CS)) (REHMAT GUL Versus DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, I. C. I. PAKISTAN MANUFACTURER LTD., SHADHARA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑‑Grievance petition dismissed in default‑Restoration of‑Application supported by affidavit that date of hearing misunderstood‑No rebutal made by respondent‑Labour Court dismissing restoration application on very date on which respond6pt appeared ‑ Appellate Tribunal, iii circumstances, setting aside order of Labour Court and restoring grievance petition with observations that Labour Court should have given opportunity to petitioner (appellant to prove grounds of application if it was not inclined to believe unreplied application and un controverted affidavit.
- Pervez Malik for Appellant.
- M. S. Bokhari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 21st February, 1984.
Judgment & Decree
Pervez Malik for Appellant. M. S. Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing : 21st February, 1984. The order, dated 30th January, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged, whereby the application of the appellant for the restoration of his grievance petition was dismissed.
2. The ground on which restoration of the grievance petition was prayed for was that the date of 11th April, 1982 was misunderstood and noted as 14th April, 1982. The petition was duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant. The respondent neither filed any reply, nor filed any counter‑affidavit. It is thus clear that the prayer for restoration was not seriously contested. Apart from it, if the learned lower Court was not inclined to believe the unreplied application and the uncontroverted affidavit of the appellant, it should have given opportunity to the appellant to prove the ground by evidence. The file reveals that without giving opportunity to prove the application for restoration and without recording the statement of the appellant to the effect that be did not want to lead any evidence, the application was dismissed on the very first date on which the respondent appeared.
3. As a result of what has been said above, believing the unrebutted affidavit of the appellant, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the grievance petition of the appellant is restored. The case is remanded for the decision of the grievance petition on merits. A. E. Case remanded.