1986 PLC(CS) 504

The decision, dated 9‑8‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan is reported to be of no legal effect as it was passed without hearing the parties.

2. The date for arguments of the appeal was 10‑6‑1984. The appeal was adjourned to 29‑7‑1984. None appeared for the petitioner on the said date. The learned lower appellate Court adjourned the case to the following day for decision as according to it, the counsel for the parties had displayed non‑co‑operating attitude by not appearing in person to argue the appeal. On 30‑7‑1984 the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the Reader adjourned the appeal to 9‑8‑1984 and on the said date the appeal was accepted in the absence of the petitioner's counsel. It has been argued that the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on 31‑7‑1984 and the Reader wrongly recorded his presence. Photo copy of cause list of 29th, 30th and 31st have been produced with the revision. The appeal in question does not find place in any of them. This being so, the contention that the Reader wrongly recorded the presence may be correct. So, the petitioner has been condemned unheard.

3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the appeal is remanded for redecision after hearing both the parties.

A. E.

Revision accepted.