ALLEEM JAVED Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

ORDER

NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑ In the complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Chairman NIRC, the Chairman, on the application for stay moved by the petitioner in that complaint, granted an ad‑interim order. That ad‑interim order was passed on 21‑2‑87 by the Chairman NIRC. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on a few dates and on 13‑4‑87 the matter was adjourned at the request of the petitioner to 28‑4‑87. On 28‑4‑87, an application was received from the learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment on medical grounds. The case was adjourned to 10‑5‑87 but the learned Chairman NIRC observed in the order dated 28‑4‑87 adjourning the case that a stay was operating in favour of the petitioner and he should have shown more diligence in making his appearance and alternate arrangement if his counsel was not well. On 10‑5‑87 also neither the petitioner nor the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared but an application was received from the learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment on' the ground that he was suffering from renal pain and a medical certificate dated 5‑5‑87 was enclosed with the application for adjournment. The learned Chairman observed that there was no reason shown for non‑appearance of the petitioner himself. It was pointed out in his order dated 10‑5‑87 that an ad‑interim order had been passed and then the matter had been adjourned at the request of the petitioner and on the previous date there was an observation that the petitioners should make alternate arrangement if his counsel was not well. In the circumstances, the learned Chairman recalled the ad‑interim order dated 21‑2‑87 for stay and then the hearing was adjourned to 29‑6‑87. This order dated 10‑5‑87 is impugned in the present constitutional petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 10‑5‑87 of the learned Chairman NIRC suffers from misreading of facts. We find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. The order dated 10‑5‑87 is clear. An ad‑interim order dated 21‑2‑87 had been obtained and thereafter several adjournments had been sought by or on behalf of the petitioner and in the order dated 28‑4‑87 there was an observation about making of alternate arrangement in case petitioner's counsel was not well. In A spite of all this on 10‑5‑87 neither the petitioner appeared nor the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner's counsel apparently was suffering from some illness but in any case the petitioner should have appeared or alternate arrangement should have been made as observed in the order dated 28‑4‑87. Even otherwise, only the ad‑interim order dated 21‑2‑87 had been recalled. In the circumstances mentioned above, and the complaint is still pending before the learned Chairman NIRC. In our view, the present constitutional petition is not maintainable.

C.P.No. D‑517/87 is dismissed in limine.

2. Misc. No.1191/87 has become infructuous and stands dismissed as such.

A.A . /A‑236/ K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed