1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-In these three appeals the common question for consideration is as to whether notice impugning the, termination of service is mandatory under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before instituting proceedings in a Labour Court for setting it aside. Factually in none of these cases such as notice was given.
2. The High Court relying on the case of Nasim Silk Industries v. Fifth Sind Labour Court and others (1), held that it was necessary and gave the relief. But it seems that the High Court failed to notice that after the judgment in this case subsection (6) was inserted in section 25-A on 9th of February, 1973, by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, which did away with the requirement of notice.
3. This subsection was construed by this Court and it was held that the aggrieved worker could seek his remedy against the termination of his employment directly from the Junior Labor Court.
4. Reference in this connection may be made to Iftikhar Elahi v. Butt Engineering Industries (2).
5. ' Accordingly, these appeals succeed and are allowed, but with no order as to costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1977 Kar. 793 (2) 1982 SCM R 1207 {{FOOT NOTE}}