1. DECISION ' This appeal is directed against a single order of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad dated 9-2-1989 whereby he dismissed two grievance Applications Nos.5 and 6 of 1988 mainly on the ground that in the cross-examination the appellant had admitted that they were not present at the time of presentation of the grievance petition and also that some of them had admitted that they had not sent the grievance notice. The application No,5 of 1988 was filed by five workers, and application No,6 of 1988 was filed by four workers.
2. ' Heard Mr. Saleem Khan for the appellants. None present for the respondent though notice was sent on their correct address by registered post. Service is held good.
3. ' Mr. Saleem concedes that all the other appellants except appellant Saleem Samiullah who is applicant No,5 in grievance application No,5 of 1988 had admitted that they were not present at the time of presentation of the grievance petition. He does not press the appeal of the other appellants, except that of Saleem s/o Samiullah.
4. Mr. Saleem s/o Samiullah has stated in his cross-examination that he had given grievance notice to the opponent. He has further stated that before this he had come in the Court on the day when the case was filed. This statement of appellant Saleem s/o Samiullah has gone unrebutted. His contention that his services were terminated by an oral order has also gone unrebutted. Such termination of service would be in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
5. Though the impugned order is purported to have been passed by the learned Labour Court under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. But in fact this is an order on merits which has been passed after examination of the evidence of the appellants and where the respondents did not choose to examine any evidence but applied that case be disposed of on the admission of the appellant.
6. ' In view of the above, the appeal of Saleem s/o Samiullah is allowed and he is ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits, while the appeal of the rest of the appellants is dismissed as not pressed.