JUDGMENTSince the eleven appeals captioned above involve same questions of fact and they are being disposed of together through this single judgement.
2. The learned lower court has held that the Industrial Relations dinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable and s the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. It has been argued by the learned msel for the appellants that the arguments of the parties were heard by the rned lower court on 8.10.1989 but the judgement was announced on 29.11.1989 :r one month and twenty- one days. He has argued that on account of the delay impugned decision is not sustainable. It cannot be expected from a judicial icer that he would remember the arguments of the parties for more than one nth. The points involved in the cases were very important and controversial. Ce the learned Presiding Officer had not been able to decide the cases within ; month of hearing the arguments probably due to rush of work, he should have reheard the arguments before preparing and announcing the final orders. Leamed counsel for the respondent has not been able to cite any ruling to the effect that inspite of such a defect the judgement cannot be challenged. There are many rulings of various High Courts on the point, although at present I am not in a position to cite them. In cases of simple nature it may be presumed that the court deciding the case remembered the arguments and legal and factual facts of the case but in a case like the one in hand it is difficult to say that the arguments were fresh in the mind of the learned Presiding Officer.
3. As a result of the observations made above, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower court, the cases are remanded with the direction that after re-hearing the arguments the cases be redecided.The learned lower court shall try to decide the cases soon, because only the arguments are to be reheard. Present one of the appellants namely Abdul Aziz: Nemo for the respondent.