1984 PLP 544 (PLC)

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition against wrongful termina tion of service‑‑Employer (respondent) failing to file written state ment and remaining inactive during hearings before Labour Court and then absenting‑Labour Court passing ex parte order of re instatement with back benefits in favour of petitioner (workman) on basis of his affidavit in evidence not cross‑examined by respondent due to his absence‑Plea in appeal that representative of respondent absented due to threats of petitioner (workman)‑No material available on record in support of such plea‑Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed summarily by Appellate Tribunal. Muhammad Ibrahim Bajwa for Appellant. Date of hearing : 5th December, 1983. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent's services, who was perma nent workman in the appellant establishment were suddenly terminated by verbal order without assigning any reason on 20th February, 1983. He sent a grievance notice, dated 8th March, 1933 to the appellant, but with no result. He, therefore, filed a grievance application in the Fifth Labour Court at Karachi on 10th April, 1983 for his reinstatement in service. The appellants were served with a notice of the grievance application from the Court for the first time on 10th May, 1983 and their representative went on obtaining adjournments till 17th July, 1983 when an ex parte order was passed against the appellants on account of his absence and failure to file a written reply, The matter was then adjourned to 24th July, 1983 for filing affidavits in ex parte proof. The respondent's affidavit was filed and the matter was adjourned to 30th July, 1983. On this date the applicant and his Advocate, as well as Mr. Iqbal, the representative of the appellants, were present and moved a compromise application which is on the record. It appears that this compromise was not recorded and accepted by the Court for the reason that the parties did not press for it. Subsequently an application for setting aside the ex parte order was moved on behalf of the appellants which was rejected on 25th August, 1983 on account of failure of appearance in Court of the representative of the appellants. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court acted on the affidavit filed in evidence of the respondent who was not cross‑examined on account of the failure on the part of the representative of the appellant to appear in Court and passed an ex parte decision, dated 30th October, 1983 ordering reinstatement of the respondent with full back benefits. Aggrieved by this order the appellants have come up in this appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Bajwa for the appellants and have also gone through the material evidence available on the record. From the Order sheet it is clear that the appellants have failed to file the reply statement as well as affidavits in evidence, and instead at one stage filed a compromise application agreeing to the reinstatement of the respondent with full back benefits. It appears that the appellants backed out of such compromise subsequently for the reasons best known to them. From the Order Sheet, it is also clear that the appellant's representative remained absent and inactive during the course of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, his failure to take part in the proceedings ultimately resulting in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended, firstly, that they had no knowledge of the proceedings and have suddenly appeared now finding the impugned order against them, and secondly, that their representative dis appeared from the Court due to the threats of the respondent and has not come back to the establishment even uptil now. The material available on the record is clear that the appellants as well as representative of the appellants had knowledge of the proceedings as they were duly served and had obtained a number of the adjournments at different stages but were inactive in the proceedings with the result that they neither filed the reply statement in spite of opportunities allowed to them, nor did they cross -examine the respondent on his affidavit in the evidence or even they filed their own affidavits in evidence. I further find that there is no material available on the record that the respondent advanced threats to the representative of the appellants to the extent that he had disappeared and is not found out by them uptil now. The contentions of the appellants in view of the back ground stated by me above, are, therefore, devoid of force.

3. The appeal is dismissed summarily. A.E.