Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUSHVILLE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE VS Respondent: KHAN MUHAMMAD
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: MUSHVILLE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE vs KHAN MUHAMMAD Case No.: Appeal No, LHR-387 of 1979 Date of Judgment:1982-06-06 Reported As: 1984 PLC 518 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 7th May, 1979 passed by the learned Presding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the case of the appellant was closed and the petition of the appellant for the restoration of the application for getting the ex parte decision set aside was dismissed for want of evidence. 2. The case was being adjourned right from 12th September, 1978 upto the last on the request of the appellant for the reasons that his counsel was not available. Only on one intervening date which was 24th October, 1978 the case was adjourned as the Presiding Officer was on leave. The case had been adjourned for eight times on the request of the appellant, therefore, on 7th May, 1979 further request for adjournment was refused. I do not think that in these circumstances, the learned lower Court committed any mistake in refusing to grant further adjournment. The learned counsel for the appellant says that since never adjournment was granted on payment of costs, therefore, last opportunity should have been granted. I do not find any for in this argument. Seeking adjournment is not a right and the Court has no discretion to grant adjournment as a matter of course. The adjournment is granted if there is shown a just cause. The learned counsel ha further argued that the appellant should not have been punished for the fault of his counsel. Adjournment for the non- availability of the counsel on one or two dates may be justified but in the present case eight adjournments had been taken for that reason. The ground for adjournments made on 7th May, 1979 was that the Manager of the appellant Industries was ill. No medical certificate of the Manager had been brought on the record to show that actually he was ill. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in refusing adjournment. Since no evidence had been produced
---
## Page 2
by the appellant in support of his application for restoration, the petition was rightly dismissed for want of evidence. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.