1. The petitioner through this petition has prayed the following reliefs: -
(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the aforesaid order, dated 21-1-1986 of the second respondent is grossly unjust and bad in law and to direct the said respondent to decide the preliminary legal objection of the petition in the first instance.
(b) That such other or further relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) That costs of this petition may also be granted to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner is a private limited Company and carry on the business of manufacturing, marketing and sealing drugs and medicines with their registered office and factory And it employs about 139 permanent workmen. It is the case of the petitioner that on the expiry on 31-12-1984 of the agreement of Settlement between the petitioner and the first respondent with regard to the terms of employment of the workman employed by the petitioner the first respondent served upon the petitioner notice, dated 1-1-1985 under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). It is the case of the petitioner that since no settlement was reached between the petitioner and the first respondent in pursuance to the notice, dated 1-1-1985 the first respondent gave notice dated 17-1--1985 proposing to call strike on 1-2-1985 for the points of industrial dispute explained in its annexures. Consequent upon the strike notice conciliation proceedings were held which were declared to have failed on 4-6-1985 The first respondent claiming to be a Collective Bargaining Agent filed an application under section 32(1-A) of the Ordinance before the second respondent. The petitioner filed preliminary legal objections.
3. The first respondent filed reply to the preliminary objections. The second respondent after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties rejected petitioner's preliminary objections, vide order, dated 21-1-1986. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed the memo. Of petition on the grounds mentioned therein.
4. Mr. Ibrahim Pishori, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the legal objections raised on behalf of the petitioner in which it challenged the locus standi of the first respondent.
5. On the other hand Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that the first respondent has been recognized and dealt with as a Collective Bargaining Agent of the workman of the petitioner and this petitioner is stopped from challenging the status of the first respondent to raise industrial dispute as a Collective Bargaining Agent of its workmen.
6. The learned counsel for the first respondent has further submitted that in the present case evidence is required to be led by the parties for the disposal of almost all the points.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions of the superior Courts. On the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent has relied upon the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.F. Ferguson Company v. Sind Labour Court and another PLD 1985 SC 429 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not favoured piecemeal and fragmentary decisions of the case.
8. It has been laid down in some of the authorities that if by deciding preliminary issue separately whole case can be disposed of then such issue should be decided first. The principle laid down in those decisions is that if a suit or application is otherwise incompetent and cannot proceed then no further time should be consumed to the annoyance and inconvenience of the parties so that they may not be engaged in a fulfleged litigation. Further in such case the plaintiff/ applicant gets a chance to retrace his steps at the earliest possible moment so that if permissible under the law he may file proper constituted suit or application.
9. In Jagnarain Dubey v. Bidapat Dubey AIR 1923 Pat. 344 it has been held that an issue requiring evidence cannot be called e preliminary issue.
10. In the present case, it is not possible to dispose of the preliminary legal objections separating from other issues as similar evidence will have to be led on all the issues. In the interest of justice the piecemeal or fragmentary decisions are not favoured by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected the application for deciding legal objection. Consequently there being no legal force in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
11. The parties shall bear their own costs. The learned Labour Court is directed, to decide the case in accordance with law.
12. A. A.