' This is an appeal challenging the impugned order, dated 24-9-1983, passed by the Ilnd Labour Court, Karachi. The learned Labour Court rejected the grievance application of the appellant under Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C.
2. The learned counsel Mr. De'Cruz, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, Advocate, for the respondent were both heard. The contentions of Mr. De'Cruz are precisely that the learned Lower Court has misconstrued the Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C, and the C.P.C. Is applicable in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, only so far the procedure is concerned. He has relied upon the authorities, firstly, 1973 PLC 111 and secondly, 1974 PLC 225. However, the judgment of their Lordships Tufail All A. Rehman and Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, reported in 1973 PLC 111 observes as under:- "I am, therefore, of the view that subsection (2) does not confer upon a Labour Court, while adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute, all the powers of a civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code but only such of them as may be described as procedural, i.e. Such as are required 'for the purpose' of adjudication and determination. Now, it is clearly not necessary in order to be able to adjudicate or determine a dispute, that pending the adjudication or determination, a party be restrained from giving effect to the kind of the order of which respondent No. 2 complained to the Labour Court."
3. Thus, the application of the C.P.C. In the matters relating to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, shall confine to the procedural matters.
4. The Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C. Contemplates that plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) ..
(c) Not relevant.
(d) . . . . .
5. The learned Lower Court has relied on the statement of the respondents who in their statement have taken up a stand that the appellant is still in service and not dismissed and that an enquiry was pending. The Lower Court has erred in as much as he has relied on the statement of the respondents which is not contemplated under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Under rule 11, C.P.C. Only the plaint is to be seen and found out if there is no cause of action. The cause of action in the present case is precisely that the appellant was gate--stopped on 30-4-1983 and verbally told that he may take his benefits and need not to come thereafter. This was a verbal order passed by the employers. This is enough cause of action so far Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Is concerned. The impugned order, therefore, is not proper order and I feel it advisable to set it aside. The appeal is accepted and the matter may be remanded to the lower Court for the adjudication on merits.