' The revision captioned above seeks to give information that the order, dated 11-4-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,5, Faisalabad, dismissing the petition of the petitioner given under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for permission to dismiss the respondent, is wrong and not borne out by facts.
2. The facts are that the respondent abused the Works Manager Abdul Latif who did not accede to his request to allow the employee to observe strike for the whole day against the disgraceful action of Israelis in Masjid-e-Aqsa.
3. I have carefully gone through the enquiry file and the learned lower Court's record. The impugned order does not appear to be suffering from any legal infirmity. During enquiry neither the statement of the respondent was recorded giving him opportunity to explain the material brought against him by the prosecution evidence, nor he was allowed to produce defence. On the close of the prosecution case, no adjournment was given for defence. The respondent did not say that he did not want to adduce any evidence in defence, so it was necessary to give him opportunity.
These two defects are sufficient for refusing permission to the petitioner to dismiss the respondent.
4. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.