' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---The petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal Karachi in appeal No, HYD-111/88 setting aside orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad who had dismissed the grievance petition of the present respondent No, 1 Briefly the facts are that the present respondent No, 1 was employed as Dozer Operator on work charge establishment in the year 1961. The service conditions of such workers are governed by the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The facts as submitted by the learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh show that the present respondent No, 1 had applied for leave on the ground of illness but he was given a letter to appear before the Medical Officer. It is argued that the present respondent No, 1 did not appear before the Medical Officer but he remained absent. However, on 16-6-1987 the respondent No, 1 is said to have made an application to be taken on duty but he was not so taken on duty as his services were terminated. The learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh has submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the present respondent No, 1 on 26-12-1982. The present applicant after serving a notice of grievance filed the petition before the Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after hearing the parties was pleased to dismiss the grievance petition of the present respondent No, 1 in following terms.
"Even if the termination order was not served on him, atleast he was refused duty in November .1985 as per the assertion of the applicant himself and further that he had moved an application on 16-6-1987 and if these two grievance notices alone are considered, the grievance notice having been served for this petition on 23-9-1987, the present petition would become time-barred."
' The present respondent No, 1 then preferred appeal before Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi which was allowed and the order of the Labour Court No, VI was set aside. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed this petition.
' We have heard Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, Assistant Advocate General Sindh for the petitioners and Mr. M. Bashir Awan, Advocate for the respondent No,
1. The only point raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General is that the present respondent No, 1 was an absconder from the duty and it was because of his abscondence that his services were terminated. However, he has candidly conceded that the alleged termination order is not available on record. From this fact it can safely be assumed that no such order was passed by the petitioner. The order passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal also shows that on enquiry from the petitioners it was admitted by the petitioners' representative that order of termination was not issued. Not only this but when questioned the learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh states that there is nothing on the record to show if the show-cause notice or any other letter was ever served on the present respondent No,
1. He further contended that no reply to the grievance notice, served by the respondent No,1, was given by the petitioners.
' In these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi. This petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.