DECISION ' This appeal is filed, against the order passed by learned Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, dated 13-2-1989.
2. I have heard Mr. Raja Shams-uz-Zaman, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani for the respondents and also have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the appellants were workmen working with the respondents whose services were terminated on 11-7-1988 on account of retrenchment. Aggrieved by this retrenchment they served joint greivance notice upon the respondent and then filed joint grievance petition. All the 31 appellants have filed affidavit-in-evidence in support of their case, but one of the appellant Ahmed was cross-examined by the respondent and after conclusion of his cross-examination, both the parties agreed that his cross-examination in this case will be treated as cross- examination in all the thirty cases. In the cross-examination the original grievance notice consisting of one page was shown to the appellant Ahmed and he admitted that it did not bear signature of any of the appellants. This grievance notice is Exh. A/1. He, however, produced a photostat copy of grievance notice which he had produced alongwith petition Exh. A/3 which consisted of two pages and on the second page there were names and signatures of the applicants but he further submitted, that this was prepared in a joint sitting 15 days prior to the filing of the grievance petition. It may be pointed out that grievance notice Exh. A/1 is dated 7-8- 1988, whereas the grievance petition was filed on 29-8-1988. If 15 days are deducted from this the date of preparation of ExhA/3 would be 14-8-1988. After the cross-examination of this witness, instead of producing any witness the respondent moved an application for dismissal of the grievance petition on the ground of admission of the appellant Ahmed that the grievance Exh. A/1 did not bear signatures of any of the appellants. Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani submits that the respondents had filed affidavit-in-evidence of their witness but did not tender him for cross- examination, before the impugned order was passed. The learned Labour Court on the basis of the aforesaid admission of the appellant Ahmed dismissed the grievance petition.
4. Mr. Raja Shams-uz-Zaman has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to two paras. In affidavit-in- evidence of witness Ahmed which are common in the affidavits-in-evidence filed by all the appellants. Para. 8 shows that after the grievance notice five respondents Nos. 6, 12, 14, 20 and 23 sent a corrigendum to the respondents in writing correcting their fathers' names and he states that this notice bears the signatures of these five appellants. He has further stated in para. 13 of the affidavit-in-evidence that their grievance notice consisted of two pages and their signatures and names were on the second page. Mr. Raja Shamsuz-Zaman further submitted, that these two averments of the appellants have neither been challenged in the cross-examination nor have been rebutted by production of any witness by the respondents. In my opinion, the decision has been taken by the learned Presiding Officer a little prematurely. It would be in the interest of justice if the appellants are also given chance to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents to prove the averments made by them in the aforesaid paras. Of the affidavit-in-evidence.
5. I, therefore, set aside the impunged order. Remand the case for retrial to the learned trial Court to decide the case, unprejudiced by the previous order, after giving opportunity to both the sides to produce further evidence, if any, and to cross-examine each other's witnesses.