The three appeals captioned above are being disposed of through this single judgment since common questions of fact and law are involved.
2. The case of the appellants is that their services were orally terminated and before that they were suspended. They, therefore, in their grievance petitions challenged the orders of their suspension as well as oral termination. Learned counsel for the respondent made statement before the learned lower Court in the grievance petitions that the appellants had not been terminated from service. Nothing was said on the point of suspension. The learned lower Court, on the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, dismissed the grievance petitions as pre-mature observing that if any order was passed terminating the service only then it may be challenged. It has been argued before me by the learned counsel for the respondent, so far as George Nadeem is concerned, that he was not suspended but the representative of the appellant says that the said worker was also suspended and if the case had proceeded in the learned lower Court this fact would have been proved. Since the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding on the point of suspension, the impugned order is not maintainable. The impugned orders were passed by the learned lower Court without even inviting written statements from the respondent. The parties were at the issues even on the question of termination of service, therefore, learned lower Court should have after inviting evidence from the parties on the point decided the case.
3. As a result the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions the cases are remanded with the direction that after inviting written statement from the respondent and after affording opportunity to both the parties to bring evidence on the points and issues the petitions