1. DECISION ' This is a revision application filed by the applicant under section 38(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the order, dated 12-9-1998 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,1, Karachi, dismissing the application under section 151 of C.P.C., for setting aside the order, dated 28-7-1998 and 19-8-1998.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the above revision application are that the respondent filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 16-12-1997 in the Sindh Labour Court No,1, Karachi, The applicant filed the written statement in April, 1998, thereafter the affidavit- in-evidence of the respondent was filed. He was cross-examined and his side was closed on 14-7- 1998.
3. ' The learned Presiding Officer then fixed 27-8-1998 for filing the affidavit-in-evidence of the applicant. On that date neither affidavit-inevidence was filed nor the Advocate for the applicant/respondent made an appearance in the Court, The learned Presiding Officer was, therefore, obliged to closing the side of the applicant/respondent. On the following day i,e, 29-7- 1998 the applicant filed an application under section 151 of C.P.C., for reopening the side of the applicant. The Medical Certificate (undated) was also fixed in proof of the alleged fact that the applicant's Advocate was sick on 27th and 28th of July, 1998. The said application was, however, fixed for 19-8-1998 for hearing. The counsel for the applicant again remained absent and consequently the application for re-opening the side of the applicant was dismissed for non- prosecution. The applicant's counsel filed another application on 21-8-1998 under section 151 of C.P.C., for restoration of his earlier application for reopening his side but again he remained absent and the application was dismissed at late hour of the day.
4. ' Mr. Habibullah submits that his absence on 28-7-1998 was beyond his control as he was seriously ill, and that on 19-8-1998 he was busy in the High Court, but the counsel either should have made an application for adjournment or as soon as he was free from the High Court he should have appeared before the learned Labour Court, instead he went to Services Tribunal to attend the case there. He came to the Labour Court at about 1:45 p.m. Which was too late. There is no explanation as to why the applicant was not present, being an Industrial Establishment someone should have made appearance in the Court As regards the counsel's absence on 12-9-1988 no plausible explanation was given by the counsel for his absence. It appears that the applicant and his counsel have been negligent or at least careless in perusing the matter diligently in the Labour Court No, 1, Karachi.
5. ' I, therefore, find no justification for setting aside the impugned orders of the learned Presiding Officer. In result, this revision has no merits and it is dismissed.
6. ' The learned Presiding Officer will now proceed with the case on merits on the basis of the evidence that is on record.
7. ' R and P be sent back immediately.