The Registrar, Trade Unions approved election of office-bearers of the trade union held on 25-3- 1994, and the order was challenged by a rival claimant, Akhtar Sher Khan, by preferring an appeal under section 8(7), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He, however, met failure, as his appeal was dismissed by Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur on 31-5-1994. He filed a revision petition before this Tribunal, with a delay of several months, on 14-9-1994. Long thereafter, on 14-2-1995 the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner sought an opportunity to make an application for condonation of delay. On the next date, i.e. On 12-3-1995, however, he did not turn up and the revision petition was dismissed in default. An application for its revival was submitted on 11-4-1995.
That to was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16-4-1995.
2. The instant application for restoration of the aforesaid application dated 11-4-1995 was moved on 25-6-1995. It was obviously the-barred. The learned counsel, however, has not found it possible to address the Court in respect of this application over several dates. He has been getting adjournments throughout. Last one in the series was made, by post, on 31-1-1996, and it was indulgently allowed, but it was made clear that the next one would be the last date. Today again, however, the learned counsel has opted to absent himself and has repeated the request in similar manner. Evidently it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court, if litigants and lawyers, in the aforesaid manner, are extended indulgence and are permitted to adopt an attitude of lethargy and utter carelessness at the cost of their opponents and to the detriment of interests of justice.
The learned lawyer from Bahawalpur has developed a habit of making such requests in multiple cases repeatedly on occasions one after the other, even though he gets dates of his choice. This is to much and I would regard it as a practice opposed to professional ethics
3. The reason stated for non-prosecution is 'in-advertence', which hardly justifies grant of request for revival of a cause, and that to made beyond the prescribed period of limitation. I would reject the application.