DECISION ' Heard Mr., M.L. Shahani, Advocate: ' This appeal is against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No,IV at Karachi, dated 15-12-1988, whereby he dismissed the application for restoration of the grievance application of the applicant which was dismissed in default on 8-10-1988. The relevant portion of the impugned order narrating the history of the case as well as reasons of dismissal is reproduced as under:- "Ordinarily, Orders such as impugned orders are passed after keeping in view the previous conduct of the party and this regard, it is seen that the petitioners after filing their affidavit in evidence on 6- 7-1988 did not appear on 19-7-1988, 3-9-1988 and also on 22-9-1988. The contention of the petitioners and their learned Advocate in the affidavit in rejoinder that the case would not proceed on 22-9-1988 on account of absence of Peshkar or the stenographer is not supported by the case- diary. So far, particularly on 8-10-1988 the date on which the impugned order was passed is concerned the diary shows that the petitioners were called absent and it was noted that they had remained absent on previous four hearings as well and the learned Advocate for petitioners had stated that the petitioners were not attending, the Court despite their instructions.
' Then, without casting doubt on the medical certificates it is observed that it has not been stated therein that the condition of the petitioners was such that they could not intimate either their Advocate or this Court on 8-10-1988 with regard to their sickness.
' Under the circumstances, and in view of past conduct of the petitioners, it is held that there is no legal justification, to set aside the impugned order and in this regard, reliance is placed on 1987 PLC 131. Consequently, both these applications are hereby dismissed."
2. Apart from above grounds it may be added that on 8-10-1988, the counsel of the appellants was present before the learned Labour Court and made statement that applicant was not attending in spite of the instructions of the counsel. As would appear from the impugned order the appellant had been remaining continuously absent after filing affidavit-in-evidence. This clearly indicates the intention of the appellant was to delay the proceedings before the Labour Court or it shows that he was not interested in proceedings with the case.
3. It may also be pointed out that the case was dismissed in default on 8-10-1988 while the application for restoration was filed after more than three weeks viz. 5-11-1988. One medical certificate has been produced to show that the appellant was suffering from Hepotic disorder from 6-10-1988 to 26-10-1988. This certificate also does not appear to be beyond suspicion. It does not bear the signature of the patient viz. The appellant in whose favour it purports to have been issued and does not even show the name of father of the patient. No affidavit of the doctor has been filed that on 8-10-1988 appellant could not attend the Court for the reasons beyond his control.
4. For the above reasons I am inclined to agree with the view expressed by g the Trial Court and find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.