1. ORDER This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 10th January, 1974, passed by Mr. Mahmood Butt learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court No. 1, Lyallpur. By this orderjpetition of the appellant was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court. No doubt, this has been admitted by the appellant that there were only 11 workers at the time of his dismissal in the respondent concern. So learned lower Court has held that case of the appellant does not fall under the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This finding is erroneous. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 does not apply but Industrial Relations Ordinance always apply to workers of the concerns having any number of employees. Under the Shops Ordinance appellant should have been given a notice of one month or pay of one month in lieu thereof which has not been done in this case. Respondent chose ' to give a show-cause notice but did not fulfil all the requirements of the inquiry. Had he not chosen to give a notice to hold inquiry, he would have been free to dismiss the worker after paying him one month's wages or notice in lieu thereof. I have perused the petition of the petitioner before the Junior Labour Court and in para. 4 of his petition he has stated that workers of this concern formed a Union and applied for its registration on 23rd November 1973. On 24th November 1973 he informed the employer and handed over him a list of office-bearers of the Union. This fact has not been controverted by the employer in his written statement or in evidence. And employer was very much bound to get permission of the Registrar, Trade Union^ before dismissing workers under section 8 (a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which he did not do and the appellant has reiterated many times that he has been victimized for his Trade Union activities. After perusal of the evidence and pleadings of 1he parties it becomes crystal clear that appellant has beenl victimized for his Trade Union activities. This act of the employer is clean cut unfair labour practice on his part and for this reason I set aside the order] of the Junior Labour Court and re-instate the appellant. So this appeal is accepted. Appeal accepted.