DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. II, Karachi, dated 15th October 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered the re-instatement to the respondent with full back benefits. The respondent, Hamid Ali, was employed as a Tailor by the appellant-company. It is worthwhile to mention at this stage that Hamid Ali's statement goes unchallenged. He had stated that he had been not allowed to resume work after he recovered from illness. ,
2. Mr. Farhat Ali Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contended that the respondent had not given any notice to the appellant, as required by section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). It is a question of fact whether the respondent had given such a notice, as required by section 25-A of the Ordinance. The appellant should have taken this plea at the earliest when he filed his reply statement to enable the respondent to produce evidence that he had given such a notice. This point has not been taken in the Reply Statement. The Reply Statement was filed on 12th September 1972. It has, no doubt, been alleged in the affidavit which was filed on 24th February 1973 that the respondent had not complied with the procedure prescribed under section 25-A of the Ordinance. The appellant cannot, however, at this stage be allowed to 1975 Workers' Union v. Tip Top Dry Cleaners 47 (Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal) go beyond his pleading. The evidence must conform with the pleading to what is alleged in the pleading. Moreover, this point has not been taken even in the memorandum of appeal. An application under Order VI, rule 17, C. P. C. has been made to add this ground in the memorandum of appeal. Mr. Farhat Ali Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant read out Ground No. 7 of the memorandum of appeal, which reads as under: -- "That the award/judgment/order of the learned lower Court is against law and is liable to be set aside."
3. Mr. Farhat Ali Khan submitted that what he has urged is covered by this ground. I do not think so. This ground is too omnibus. Aj specific point should have been raised. Moreover, it is very belated applica- JS tion. It has been moved only today. The application for amendment is dismissed.
4. For the reasons given above, the appeal is also dismissed.