1. ORDER Circulation Manager, Daily Jang, Rawalpindi, has preferred this appeal against the ex parte order, dated 22nd October 1973 passed by the Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi whereby the application of the respondent under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted and the Agency was restored to him. The case of the petitioner-respondent is that he was appointed as Newspaper Agent by the respondent and performed his duties as such for a period of five years when all of a sudden the respondent cancelled his Agency without any reason.
2. The petitioner contended that the termination of the Agency was illegal and it should be re-allotted to him. The respondent resisted the petition and raised a number of preliminary objections, one of them being that the petitioner is not a workman and the petition is incompetent. The file of the lower Court shows that the case was fixed for 22nd October 1973 for production of agreement of Agency. On this date the respondent failed to appear and the Court proceeded ex parte against him and passed orders restoring the Agency. By the same order the Court adjourned the proceedings to 2nd November 1973 and issued bailable warrant of arrest for procuring his attendance. The learned Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court was called by me to explain as to why the proceedings were adjourned to 2nd November 1973 when the entire relief had been granted to the petitioner-respondent. He has stated while writing the orders, it came to his notice that 22nd October 1973 had been fixed for production of agreement of Agency, therefore, he adjourned the case for production of that document and other evidence and in fact final order was not passed on tha date. He further stated that the order restoring the Agency was never announced. The order sheet further shows that on 2nd November 1973 the agreement of Agency was produced in Court and the counsel for the petitioner requested for adjournment to cross- examine the respondent and the case was adjourned to 8th November 1973 and then to 14th November 1973 when the respondent was cross-examined by the petitioner. After that the proceedings were stayed under the order of this Court. The petitioner had been participating in the proceedings after the date of the impugned A order which also shows that the order restoring the Agency was not announced. 1 am, therefore, of the view that this appeal is premature and it stands disposed of as such. The file shall be sent back to the Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi, immediately.