' The decision, dated 4-6-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement in service was dismissed on the ground that he had been dismissed under M.L.O.
53.
2. Firstly, there is no M.L.O. 53 which may have provided the dismissal of an employee of P.I.A. Or any other Corporation. However, M.L.O. 52 is such an order under which such action may be taken.
Secondly, no order passed either under M.L.O. 53 or M.L.O. 52 is on the file, nor any one has been produced before me by the respondent. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as a matter of fact no order of dismissal has ever been passed under M.L.R.
52. The impugned order of dismissal is Exh. P.15 passed by the Admn. Manager Marketing and is not passed under any M.L.R. This is quite unknown to the file if ever any dismissal order was passed under any M.L.R. It, therefore, appears that the learned lower Court under some misunderstanding has said that the dismissal order was passed under M.L.R.
53. The appellant nowhere stated in his statement that he was dismissed under any M.L.R. As the learned lower Court has not decided the case on merits, it is liable to be remanded.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision on merits.