1978 PLP 382 (PLC)

Respondent in person Date of hearings 8th October 1977 DECISION This is a revision application against the order of the Labour Court restoring the application made under section 25‑A, which was dismissed in default.

2. The respondent had made an application under section 25‑A, T. R. O. to the Labour Court No. VI, situated at Hyderabad, which bad jurisdiction over Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions. Subsequently, a Labour Court was created at Sukkur and, therefore, this jurisdiction pertaining to the cases fn respect of Khairpur Division was vested in that Court. So far the pending cases were concerned, I had passed an order transferring all those cases of Khalrpur Division from Hyderabad Court to Labour Court at Sukkur. Since the application under section 25‑A bled by the respondent was already dismissed in default, the question of transfer of this case did not arise.

3. A long time passed and the respondent remained unaware of the progress of the case and so be contacted the Labour Court at Hyderabad when he was informed that his application wasp dismissed on account of his non‑appearance. He, therefore, made an application in the Labour Court at Sukkur for the restoration of the application, which was dismissed in default. The application was opposed. The learned Presiding Officer dismissed the objections and restored the application. Aggrieved by this, the present Revision Application had been filed.

4. On perusal of the record and proceeding and bearing the arguments, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. It is an admitted position that the case at Hyderabad was fixed on 15th November 1976, but the notice of the date of hearing was served on the respondent on 16‑11‑1976. He, therefore, sent application to the Labour Court that he could not attend the Court as the notice was served a day after the date of hearing. The case diary, however, 8110WO that on 15‑11‑76, the case did not proceed and it was adjourned to some other date but the intimation of that date was never given to the respondent. Con sequently, he could not appear on the date of bearing sad, therefore, the application was dismissed. The learned Presiding Officer commented upon this aspect of the case and proceeded to say that since the intimation was not sent to the respondent, he could not be expected to be present on the date of hearing and the order of dismissal without giving notice WAS not sustainable. The plea that the application made for restoration was time-barred was also rejected and the delay was condoned on the ground that the respondent was not aware of the dismissal of the application and, as soon as he came to know about the fate of his application, he made the application for restoration. This was considered to be a sufficient ground for condonation of the delay and I entirely agree with the learned Presiding officer.

5. It was further urged on behalf of the applicant before me that the Labour Court at Sukkur had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for restoring the application as the order which I had passed for transferring the cases related to the cases which were pending and since this case was not pending, this could not be deemed to have been transferred and the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court at Sukkur had no jurisdiction to assume the power of transfer and take up the case. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that my order for transfer of the cases related simply to the cases, which had been disposed of and for future cases, the jurisdiction vested in the Labour Court at Sukkur. The application for restoration of the case, therefore, could not be filed at Hyderabad but it bad to be filed at Sukkur and was lightly entertained. So it was not a question of the transfer of a case but the question relating to the entertainment of the application for restoration of the case. In my view, the application was properly entertained and the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to deal with the application on merits. Since he had the jurisdiction to dispose of the application, he could not do it without sending for the records from the previous Labour Court. He had, therefore, not exercised the power of transfer of the case but he simply disposed of the application, which was duly presented to him and he bad the jurisdiction to entertain it.

6. In result, the Revision Application is dismissed. Revision application dismissed.