DECISION ' This is a Reision Application under section 38(3-a) of I.R.O., 1969 invoking the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal with the prayer to consider the legality and correctness of the order dated 2-2-1991 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, 1 at Karachi whereby summons were issued or a complaint filed by the respondent under section 60 of I.R.0 .,1969 against the applicants.
2. I have heard Mr. Jamil Raza Zaidi for the applicants and Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the respondent.
3. The main contention of Mr. Jamil Raza Zaidi is that the termination of service of the respondent by the applicant was not by way of punishment, but was bona fide due to re-organisation of establishment, whereby Caligraphic Section of the establishment has been computerised, thereby making the services of the respondent redundant. He has relied upon the decision in case of Syed Momin v. Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. 1987 PLC 852 wherein a learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court at Karachi has held that simple discharge of workman from service without any element of punishment would not fall within the purview of section 47(1) or (2) of LR.O., 1969".
4. It is not disputed that the respondent was an office-bearer of a CBA union and that ' at the relevant time industrial dispute was raised by the CA Union which was pending before the learned Ist Sindh Labour Court. Mr. Jamil Raza Zaidi however contends, that they had taken the plea, that during the period the Wage Commission Award was in force, industrial dispute could not be raised.
Be that as it may, it is for the Labour Court to decide as to whether industrial dispute was maintainable or not, but the fact remains that industrial dispute was pending at the relevant .
5. The question as to whether removal from service of the respondent was mala fide as a result of that industrial dispute or was bona fide is a question of fact which can be decided by the learned Labour Court after the evidence is recorded. Prima facie there appears to be nothing illegal or improper in the impugned order to call for interference of this Tribunal in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
6. However, I find that one of the accused persons viz. Applicant No, 1 is residing at Lahore and other also appears to be a busy person being General Manager of a Daily Newspaper. Under these circumstances it would be advisable if their personal attendance is dispensed with if they are represented by an Advocate and if they undertake to appear on the date as and when directed by the learned Presiding Officer.
7. With this observation the Revision Application is dismissed.