Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, GUJRANWALA VS Respondent: UMAR DIN
1993 P L C 992
1993 P L C 992
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, GUJRANWALA
Versus
UMAR DIN
Appeal No. GA‑479 of 1986/Pb., decided on 13th August, 1986.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Appeal against two orders viz. order relating to dismissal of application against ex parte order and order wherein ex parte decision was delivered‑‑‑Appeal to extent of dismissal of application against ex parte order having been filed beyond period of limitation unaccompanied by application for condonation of delay, held, would be dismissed as time‑barred‑‑‑Main ground against ex parte decision was that representative of employee having misunderstood date of next hearing could not attend Court‑‑‑Such application being unaccompanied by affidavit of such representative that he misunderstood date of hearing would not justify upsetting ex parte decision‑‑‑Appeal being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances.
Afzaal Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 12th August, 1986.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal challenging the orders dated 3‑6‑1986 and 2‑11‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala. Vide the former order the application for setting aside the ex parte decision was dismissed. Vide order, dated 2‑11‑1985 ex parte decision was delivered against the appellant.
2. So far as the appeal challenges the order dated 2‑11‑1985 it is time barred, inasmuch as the impugned order is dated 2‑11‑1985 and the appeal was presented on 10‑7‑1986. No application for condonation of delay has been made. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has said that since the application for setting aside the ex parte decision was moved to the learned lower Court, therefore, the main order by which the grievance petition was accepted ex parte was not challenged. This cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. There was no bar in challenging the order dat9d 2‑11‑1985 in appeal while praying before the learned lower Court for the setting aside of the same. The appeal to the extent it challenges the order dated 2‑11‑1985, therefore, is time‑barred.
3. So far as the order dated 3‑6‑1986 is concerned, whereby the application for setting aside ex parte decision was made, it has been argued that the ground for non‑appearance on the date fixed was that the Professor who used to appear to defend the appellant before the learned lower Court in the grievance petition brought by the respondent had misunderstood the date and that an affidavit was filed to that effect. No doubt an affidavit was filed but it was not of the person who is alleged to have misunderstood the date the affidavit of the Principal was filed who was not appearing before the learned lower court and did not note down the date. The name of the said Professor is Mr. Mohammad Ayub Raza. As he did not file any affidavit, it is apparent that the ground taken was incorrect and Mr. Mohammad Ayub Nazar was not prepared to support the plea by giving his own affidavit. Since the plea that the date was wrongly understood was not established before the learned lower Court, it was justified in refusing to set aside the exe parte order.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
A.A./181/Lb.P Appeal dismissed