' In this appeal the decision dated 22nd January, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi has been challenged, whereby a direction was given to the respondent to cancel the registration of the appellant Union. The ground on which the cancellation of registration was ordered is that PLASTIC is not an industry, therefore, the employees working in it were not entitled to form any Union. The learned lower Court did not invite evidence on the point whether PLASTIC was an industry or not. Only arguments were heard. No statements of the parties were recorded to the effect that they did not want to produce any evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that oral and documentary evidence was to be produced to show that PLASTIC was an industry and since no opportunity was given, the appellant has been prejudiced. It is the right of parties to decide whether on a particular point they want to lead evidence or not. Whether PLASTIC is an industry is a mixed question of fact and law and if the appellant wishes to produce evidence, it cannot be said that he is intentionally prolonging the case. If the learned lower Court had given an opportunity, the case would not have been delayed.
2. 1, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence the case be redefined in the light of the material to be brought on the record by the parties.