KALA KHAN Versus JIBILEE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 19‑3‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. II at Karachi, who had dismissed the restoration application of the appellant of an order, dated 18‑2‑1987, dismissing the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O.,1969 of the appellant for his non‑prosecution in default.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman of the respondent‑Mills and that on 1‑10‑1986, his services were dismissed illegally and mala fidely mainly on the ground that he was involved in trade union activities. The further claim of the appellant was that after complying with the legal requirements, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court.

3. As, this grievance petition was fixed for filing of an affidavit‑in -evidence by the appellant on 18‑2‑1987 and on this date, neither the appellant nor his counsel was present in the Labour Court and no such intimation was also sent, therefore, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant in default and for non‑prosecution. The appellant thereafter submitted a restoration application of this order, before the learned Labour Court and his application for restoration of the grievance petition was fixed for hearing on 19‑3‑1987, on which date, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order.

4. Today, when the case was called, the appellant was present in person and his counsel or representative was not present. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the respondent‑Mills is also present. I have heard both the parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case. The appellant has miserably failed to establish that his absence before the learned Labour Court on 18‑2‑1987 was reasonable, genuine and beyond his control. There is also nothing on record to prove the fact that the absence of the Advocate/Representative of the appellant was also cogent. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order, is quite correct and lawful and is not liable to be set aside. Hence it is maintained.

5. For the reasons stated by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.

A.E./1153/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.