DECISION ' This appeal calling question an ex parte order of re-instatement arose in the following circumstances:- ' The petitioner was employed with the respondent from 25-6-1992 as a production clerk. His services are stated to have been terminated verbally on 8-12-1993. He had therefore served a grievance notice, and there being no reply had filed the petition before the Labour Court.
2. It was admitted on 5-1-1994. On the 20th of January on an application the matter was adjourned to 29-1-1994. Before' the next date the learned Presiding Officer was transferred and on the 29th of January, 28th February, 21st of March, 16th April, only dates were given, as the post had remained vacant. On the 14th of May which was the next date on application for adjournment was filed on the ground that the parties were negotiating a settlement.
3. It was stated in the affidavit that the said application was written by the learned representative of the respondent. The same has not been controverted. The matter was then adjourned to the 7th of July.
4. The respondent remained absent on the 7th of July allegedly because of incessant rains in Karachi. It was kept for ex parte proof on the 15th and the impugned order was passed on the 31st day of July.
5. It is common knowledge that Karachi experienced heavy downpour for the last three weeks of July and the roads were turned into pools of water. There is also the fact that the parties were negotiating for compromise.
' In the circumstances I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for setting aside the impugned order.
' In the result I will allow the appeal. The ex parte order is set aside and the case is restored to its original number. The appellant will file the written statement and the case will be disposed of in accordance with law.