DECISION These are three appeals which have been disposed of by one award by the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi. The respondents were charge-sheeted for going on illegal strike and pursuad- ing others to join them in the strike.
2. The main argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the learned Court should not have disposed of these applications under section 25-A by common order. In this connection it would be noteworthy to reproduce note of the learned Court appearing after the cross- examination of Mr. Butt, Manager of the respondent-Company. The note runs as under:-- "The cross-examination in Case No. 160/72 only--relevant portion will be treated as cross-examination in this case. In all other cases both these two--cross-examinations be treated as cross-examination in those cases.** The intention of the parties is clear from the above note. They obviously requested the Court to dispose of all the cases by one order as the charges and the defence appears to be common. I asked the learned Advocate for the appel'ant to disclose the prejudice that had been caused to him by disposing of the matter together by one order. He was unable to disclose any prejudice.
3. Mr. M. Rasheed, the learned representative for the respondents on the other hand submitted that by consent of the parties the leamed Court disposed of all matters by common order In this connection Mr. M.
Rasheedl also stated that the inquiry started at 10-00 a m. and closed at 2-30 p. m.| against all the respondents. He submitted that the hurry in which the Workers* Union v. Reckitt & Colman Pak.
Ltd. 167 CInamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal) inquiry was held and the whole proceeding concluded on the same day would disclose that the respondents were not given fair opportunity. I agree with the contention raised by Mr. M. Rasheed. The appeals are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.