Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HABIB BANK Ltd., KARACHI VS Respondent: Syed ABBAS RAZA HAIDER NAQVI
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: HABIB BANK Ltd., KARACHI vs Syed ABBAS RAZA HAIDER NAQVI Case No.: Revision Petition No, KI-160 of 1984 Date of Judgment:1984-08-05 Reported As: 1985 PLC 212 Result: Revision dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The above captioned revision gives information that the order, dated 3-5-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan refusing to grant adjournment is wrong and illegal. 2. On 9-2-1984 evidence of two witnesses of the petitioner was recorded and the case was adjourned to 18-3-1984 for the remaining evidence. The case was adjourned on 18-3-1984 to 8-4- 1984 on payment of Rs,50 as costs on the request of the petitioner. No evidence was produced on the adjourned date and the request of adjourment was granted and the case was further adjourned to 3-5-1984 at the request of the petitioner as a last opportunity. On the above adjourned date the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. On 3-5-1984 again the learned counsel was not present and a request was made for adjournment. The reason was that the learned counsel had missed the plane. The learned lower Court did not consider this ground as correct as obviously the plane was missed as the learned counsel could not reach the airport in time. The learned lower Court is correct in saying that the learned counsel did not exercise care and thus was guilty of negligence. Since last opportunity had been afforded and once the case had been adjourned on payment of costs, the learned counsel should have been careful enough to attend the Court. At the time of admission of the revision it was argued that the learned counsel could get seat in the plane but in reality he missed the plane. No good ground was shown so refusal to grant further adjournment was not unjudicious. I Sufficient indulgence had been shown by the learned Court below. 3. As a result, the revision is dismissed.