' AJMAL MIAN, J.-The petitioner has impugned the order, dated 20th December, 1976, passed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi (1. e. Respondent No, 5) in Appeal No, K AR-251 of 1976 allowing the respondent No, l's appeal against the order, dated 5th July, 1976, passed by the learned Ilird Sind Labour Court at Karachi in Application No, 204/1976. The relevant facts leading to, the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted under a charge-sheet, dated 27th July, 1975 for the misconducts mentioned therein. In pursuance of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was dismissed on 1st November, 19/5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above dismissal order, filed aforesaid Application No, 204/1976 under section 25-A of the I. R.
0., 1969. The above application was resisted by respondents Nos. 1 to 4. However, the learned 1IIrd Sind Labour Court allowed the above application by the aforesaid order and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner. Respondent No, 1 being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid Appeal No, KAR-251 of 1976, which was allowed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal by the aforesaid order, dated 20th December, 1976, in which it was held that in any case the charge of go-slow has been proved. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
2. (a) In support of the above petition, Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged as follows :-
(1) That as per definition of the term "go-slow" given in section 2 (d) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), the charge of go-slow was not proved.
(ii) That there was not sufficient evidence on record to prove the charge of other misconducts on the part of the petitioner.
(b) On the other hand, Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 has contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to sustain the charge of other misconducts as concluded by the Inquiry Officer. However, he has conceded that the charge of go-slow as defined in the above provision has not been proved.
3. It may be advantageous to reproduce hereinbelow section 2 (d) of the Ordinance, which reads as follows :- "Section 2 (d).-"go-slow" means an organised, deliberate and purposeful slowing down of normal output or work by a body of workers in a concerted manner and which is not due to any mechanical defect, breakdown of machinery, failure or defect in power-supply, or in the supply of normal materials and spare parts of machinery."
' A perusal of the above-quoted subsection indicates that in order to bring a case within the purview of the above provision, an employer has to prove inter alia the following facts
(a) That the act of go-slow was an organised act ;
(b) That it was a deliberate act ;
(c) That it was a purposeful slowing down of normal output or work by a body of workers ; and
(d) That the act was a concerted act. Admittedly respondent No, 1 has not produced any evidence to prove the above ingredients.
4. We would, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, we would remand the case to the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of examining the question, whether there is sufficient evidence on the record to sustain the charge of misconduct other than the allegation of go-stow.
We are not inclined to examine the evidence on the above aspect as it is within the jurisdiction of the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal.
' The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.