1. KHUDA BAHHSH A. KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-On 3rd May 1972 the above-named applicant filed an application under section 34 of the ordinance against me above-named respondents in this Court.
2. Reply statement was filed on behalf of the respondents on. 30th May 1972. -The matter was adjourned to 12th June 1972, for affidavit of the applicant. On the said date the applicant filed his affidavit and the matter was put down to 12th July 1972 for cross-examination. On that date due to curfew imposed in the city the case was adjourned to 4th August 1972. On the said date the case diary shows that the applicant was present with his Representative Mr. F. M. Azad. Respondent was shown absent. The Court directed that notwithstanding the default of the respon--dent the case would proceed. Then the case was adjourned to 28th August 1972 for argument.
3. It was against the aforesaid order dated 4th August 1972 the present application has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it Is prayed that the order of ex parte arguments be set: aside and the matter be heard and decided on merks. This, application is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Syed Zamirul Hasan, Industrial Relations Advisor and Labour Laws Consul, cant to the respondents.
4. In the said affidavit the deponent contends that he was present in the Court on 4th August 1972 at 9.00 a.m. and waited till 10-30 a.m. Neither the applicant nor his Representative, were present at that time. As the Chairman was under orders of transfer the Reader of the Court had gives, date for cross-examination of the applicant on 7th September 1971. On 10th August 1972 he came to knew about the said order hence the said application has beta filed on 15th August 1972.
5. A notice was given to the other side. Muhammad Aqil applicant filed his reply by way of affidavit wherein he denied all the allegations made to the 'affidavit of the respondents. According to him Mr. Syed Zamirul Hasan had not filed the reply statement but it was done by Mr. Moonis Akhtar, Company---s Sectary. He has then filed the contents of the diary sheet of various dates and finally of 4 August 1972 when the said order was passed.
6. Mr. Moonis Akhtar Secretary of the respondents filed an affidavit in rejoinder.
7. I have heard the learned Representatives of the parties on this application. It is true that the dairy dated 4th August 1972 shows that none was present for the respondents. Thus the Muhammad not get any support from the case diary. Their case is that the matter taken up by the Chairman at 12 O---clock in the Chamber after the date was given to them.The Reader of court could not recall whether he had given the date in the said case may be, the respondent---s Representative as alleged Whatever the case may be, the matter wasput down for cross-examination. The maximum that could have been done according to law was that the cross-examination of the applicant could have been closed and a date should have been fixed for the A evidence of the respondents. .
8. In these circumstances I deem it proper to allow the respondents defend the, case. Accordingly I vacate the order of my learned Pre--decessor dated 4th August 1972 and allow the respondents to cross-examine the applicant and proceed further accordingly to law.