' Since the eleven appeals captioned above involve same questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The learned lower Court has held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable and thus the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the arguments of the parties were heard by the learned lower Court on 8-10-1989 but the judgment was announced on 29-11-1989 after one month and twenty-one days. He has argued that on account of the delay the impugned decision is not sustainable. It cannot be expected from a judicial officer that he would remember the arguments of the parties for more than one month. The points involved in the cases were very important and controversial. Since the learned Presiding Officer had not been able to decide the cases within one month of hearing the arguments probably due to rush of work, he should have reheard the arguments before preparing and announcing the final orders. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to cite any' ruling to the effect that in spite of such a defect the judgment 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.