This is an Appeal against the order of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated July 23, 1968. The impugned order was passed on an application under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Repealed Ordinance). I he facts briefly put are these.
2.The respondent Muhammad Younus Qureshi, was employed by the appellant, Hotel Karachi Inter-Continental as a permanent plumber on 8th February 1967. The appellant made an application under section 30 (2) of the Repealed Ordinance against the respondent for permission to dismiss him from service on the ground that he bad participated in a strike from the forenoon of 16th January 1967. The application for some reason or the other was withdrawn by the appellant on 25th May 1967. On 25th May 1967, however, the appellant terminated the services of the respondent.
The appellant made an application under section 31 of the Repealed Ordinance challenging the order of the appellant terminating his services.
3.The appellant certain Objections under section to (1)(a) of the Repealed Ordinance. One of the legal objections was that the application under section 31 of the Ordinance was not maintainable inasmuch as when the services of the respondent were terminated by the appellant no Industrial Dispute was, pending. The learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court dismissed the legal objections on 22nd May 1968. Thereafter, he proceeded to deal with the main application which was allowed by the impugned order dated July 23, 1968. The learned Chairman came to the conclusion that the services of the respondent were terminated for taking part in the strike which could not be done without holding an enquiry and giving the respondent a chance to meet the charge.
4. Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned Representative for the appellant contended that the application under section 31 of the Repealed Ordinance was not maintainable as it cannot be said that there was any violation of the provisions of section 30 of the Repealed Ordinance as no Industrial Dispute was pending when the services of the respondent were terminated. There may be force in this contention, the question, however, is as to whether the learned Representative can be allowed to urge this contention. Admittedly, this point was taken before the Industrial Court under section 10(I)
(a) of the Repealed Ordin--ance. The contention did not find favour before the Industrial Court. The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court overruled the objection by his order dated May 22, 1968.
Admittedly, no appeal was filed against the Order dated 22nd May 1968. I am of the view that the order date May 22,1968 became final. The point disposed of by the said order cannot be re- agitated now. The Memorandum of the present Appeal reads as under:- "Appeal under section 16(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Indus--trial Disputes Ordinance; 1968 against the award dated 23 July 1968 in the matter of Application No. 228/67, under section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. "
5. The prayer under the Memorandum of Appeal reads as under :-- "It is, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the award dated 23rd July, 1968."
There is no -prayer to set aside the decision dated 22nd May, 1968. 1 am of the view that without there being an appeal against the order dated 22nd May 1968, the same became final. The appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the ground which has attained finality. The learned Represen--tative for the appellant had urged no other point against the order dated 23rd July 1968.
6. The Appeal, therefore, fails.