' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 23-4-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court ho.2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted ex parte and they were directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits. Since the facts of the cases are common, the two appeals are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. Umar Draz, respondent, was Time Keeper and S.Saleem Hussain respondent, was Assistant Electrician. They were employed for National Bank Project, Lahore and on the completion of the work their services were terminated. The respondents challenged the orders of their termination in two separate grievance petitions, in which written statements were filed by the appellant, but nobody appeared on 23-4-1979 on behalf of the appellant. So ex parte proceedings were made followed by the ex parte decisions without recording evidence. Only this much was decided that the respondents, according to their posts and pay, were workmen and that the Labour Court had jurisdiction. No other ground is given for accepting the grievance petitions. The appellant has filed application for setting aside ex parte decisions and had simultaneously brought the present appeals also, but the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the petitions for setting aside ex parte decisions were made, the appeals are not competent. I do not find any force in this argument. Both the remedies were open to the appellant and he was entitled to challenge ex parte decisions in appeals as well as moving the same Court for their setting aside. Since the lower court record was summoned in these appeals, therefore, the Labour Court could not decide the application for setting aside ex parte decisions.
3. In the written statements besides other contentions, it was contended that the grievance petitions were time-barred and that no legal and valid grievance notices had been served, but the lower Court has not recorded any finding on the point. On merits the position taken by the appellant was that the respondents were appointed purely on temporary jobs for National Bank Project, that on the completion of the project the services of the respondents were no longer required. The position taken by the respondents was that since there were other projects under work by the appellant, they could be employed for other projects. In written statement it was replied that the services were not transferable to other projects and that it was not feasible for the appellant. Some other points were also raised but the learned lower Court did not decide any of them. The respondents had to meet the objections raised in the written statements before their petitions could be accepted. In these circumstances, the impugned decisions are not sustainable.
4. I, accordingly, accept the appeals and setting aside the impugned decisions remand the cases with the direction that after affording opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence, the cases be decided on merits.