' This petition is directed against the order dated 8-6-1976 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No, II, Karachi in Application No, 1 of 1976 filed by the present petitioner under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for seeking permission to dismiss respondent No, 1 from the service during the pendency of a dispute, namely, Industrial Dispute No, 4 of 1974 between the petitioner and the C.B.A., which application has been declined by the impugned order by the Sind Labour Court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present Constitutional petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It seems that while the above Industrial Dispute No, 4 of 1974 was pending, the petitioner approached the High Court through Constitutional Petition No, 531 of 1973 challenging the above proceedings on the ground that the petitioner was not an "industry within the ambit of Industrial Relations Ordinance and, therefore, the Labour Laws were not applicable. The above writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21-12- 1973, against which the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No, 25/K of 1974 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 9-6-1985. However, in the judgment it has been observed that since the Labour Court has already completed the recording of the evidence, the question whether the petitioner comes within the ambit of industry or not can be agitated by them before the Labour Court. The above case is still pending for adjudication. The present case was adjourned from time to time on the ground that the parties were directed to produce the copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court which has been produced.
3. If the contention of the petitioner is correct that the Labour Law is not applicable because their firm is not an industry, their above application under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was not competent but if it is to be held that the Labour Law is applicable and the petitioner's firm is an industry, the above application is competent. On merits the learned Labour Court in the impugned order refused the permission on the ground that the Inquiry Officer had stated that the complaint of Malik Muhammad Iqbal on the basis of which respondent No, 1 was charge-sheeted was not before the Inquiry Officer. The second ground found favour with the Labour Court is that the respondent No, 2 was not given fair opportunity to defend himself as co- charged employee's cross-examination was adopted as the cross-examination of respondent No,
2. From the material on record, it seems that Malik Muhammad Iqbal in fact had appeared before the Inquiry Officer and supported the allegations contained in the charge. The factum that the written complaint which was allegedly made by him was not present before the Inquiry Officer at the time of the inquiry might not be fatal if the inquiry otherwise was in accordance with well- established principles and the statutory rules.
4. In my view, since the question, whether factually the Labour Laws are applicable or not is an issue in aforesaid Industrial Dispute No, 4 of 1974 the present case may also be re-heard by the same Court on the question as to the justification and also on merits of the instant application for permission.
' I would, therefore, remand the case to the learned Labour Court with the direction to hear the above application along with above Industrial Dispute No, 4 of 1974.
' The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.