1997 PLP 387 (PLC)
Syed MUHAMMAD HANSEF QURESHI Versus THE EMPLOYER/MANAGER, JAMIA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1997 PLP 387 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD HANSEF QURESHI Versus THE EMPLOYER/MANAGER, JAMIA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXHI of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 387 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXHI of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 387 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 387 (PLC) (Syed MUHAMMAD HANSEF QURESHI Versus THE EMPLOYER/MANAGER, JAMIA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Dismissal. of grievance petition for non-prosecution‑‑‑Restoration‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Employee and his counsel having failed to appear on adjourned date of hearing, grievance petition filed by employee was dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑After 28 days of dismissal of grievance petition an application for restoration of same was filed by employee on ground that he and his counsel could not appear in Court on the date of hearing due to mistake in recording correct date of hearing in diary‑‑‑Labour Court dismissed application for restoration of grievance petition holding that sufficient cause for non‑appearance in Court had not been shown by employee‑‑‑Employee had challenged order of Labour Court in revision before Tribunal‑‑‑Question in the case was one of fact which had been disposed of by Labour Court and no defect was found in the order of Labour Court which could be called a legal defect‑‑‑Tribunal had to consider a revision application only on grounds of legality, propriety or correctness‑‑‑In absence of any legal defect, revision petition did not lie.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
Gohar Iqbal for Applicant. .
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Dismissal. of grievance petition for non-prosecution‑‑‑Restoration‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Employee and his counsel having failed to appear on adjourned date of hearing, grievance petition filed by employee was dismissed for non‑prosecution‑‑‑After 28 days of dismissal of grievance petition an application for restoration of same was filed by employee on ground that he and his counsel could not appear in Court on the date of hearing due to mistake in recording correct date of hearing in diary‑‑‑Labour Court dismissed application for restoration of grievance petition holding that sufficient cause for non‑appearance in Court had not been shown by employee‑‑‑Employee had challenged order of Labour Court in revision before Tribunal‑‑‑Question in the case was one of fact which had been disposed of by Labour Court and no defect was found in the order of Labour Court which could be called a legal defect‑‑‑Tribunal had to consider a revision application only on grounds of legality, propriety or correctness‑‑‑In absence of any legal defect, revision petition did not lie. Gohar Iqbal for Applicant. . Date of hearing: 10th April, 1996. Heard Mr. Gohar Iqbal for the Applicant. This Revision Application is directed against the order of Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi dismissing the application of the applicant for restoration of the petition. The petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. was fixed on 9-8-1994 and adjourned to 24-8-1994. On that date the applicant remained absent. Mr. Gohar Iqbal was also absent. After 28 days the Application for Restoration was filed on the ground that they did not appear in Court on the date of hearing due to mistake in recording correct date in the diary: The learned Labour Court held that since sufficient cause for non-appearance was not shown the matter could not be restored. Against this order Mr. Gohar Iqbal has moved this Revision Application. This Tribunal has to consider a Revision Application only on the grounds of legality, impropriety or correctness. Apparently there is no defect in the order of the Labour Court which can be called a legal defect. Here the question is one of fact which has been disposed of by the Labour Court. The Revision Application therefore does not lie under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O.
2. The application is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./113/Lb.S Revision application dismissed.