ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, J.----The present petition has been filed by Majid--ullah Kurt Arnoldi and F.
A. Mirza, who are employees or directors of a pharmaceutical concern carrying on business in the name of Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd., at Karachi but having their business premises at Jamshoro near Hyderabad. The petition seeks to challenge what is being called an oral order or direction of the respondent Commission in the nature of a direction to the petitioners to construct a mosque within the manufacturing premises of the petitioners.
2. We have heard Mr. Saleem Akhtar for the petitioners but the respondent has not appeared nor is it represented.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a dispute had arisen between Messrs Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd., as employers and their employees concern--ing some demands made by the employees. Such dispute was settled and a photo stet copy of the memorandum of settlement has been filed as Annexure 'B' to the petition. It is pertinent to mention that this document does not indicate even remotely, that the employees had made a demand for construction of a mosque within the premises of the petitioner's concern. It is then stated in the petition that in August 1973, the Chairman of the respondent Commission visited the factory premises of the petitioners and some workers mentioned to him that a mosque may be built there whereupon, the Chairman told the Production Manager of the factory "to see that a mosque is built within six months." On 16-3-74 Dr. Irfanullah along with the petitioner Kurt Arnoldi saw the Chairman of the respondent Commission and they were warned that since they had not constructed the mosque they had failed to obey the orders and were liable to penal action. A letter dated 29-4-74 (Annexure 'A') was then addressed by the respondent Commission to the petitioners directing them to appear before the Chairman of the respondent Commission on 9-5-1974 at Karachi on 16-3-1974. On this date the Chairman of the respondent Commission passed an order in the following terms; "I would like to call upon the other two members as to why action under section 22C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 should not be taken against them for violating my order which was passed 6 months ago."
4. On the same day the petitioner No. 2 and Dr. Irfannllah were asked some questions by the Chairman of the respondent Commission, concerning the construction of the mosque and it appears that the stand of the petitioners was that they did not realize that, what the Chairman had stated with regard to the construction of the mosque, amounted to an order.
5. There is no order in writing before us to indicate that the Chairman of the respondent Commission had ever passed an order in writing directing the petitioners to construct a mosque within the premises of the factory.
6. On such state of facts the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two-fold contentions before us;
(i) that no valid order in regard to construction of a mosque existed,
(ii) that the order in regard to construction of the mosque would not be covered by any of the clauses of section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
7. The allegation of the petitioners is that there was no order in writing from the Commission directing the petitioners or their concern to construct a mosque. It is needless to state that all orders of judicial or quasi judicial tribunals have to be in writing and an oral order does not carry with itself any sanctity of law. The respondents have not appeared before us nor has any order in writing been placed before us by the respondents or the petitioners and on the other hand the case of the petitioners is that an order in writing did not exist. No validity, therefore, attatches to such an order, which is an oral order made by the Chairman of the respondent Commission, at the spot, without any proceedings being drawn up or any proceedings being initiated concerning such a demand of the workers.
8. We are, therefore, of the view that this oral order of the Chairman of the respondent Commission is not a valid order in law and is of no legal effect. In the result, the proceedings subsequent to the oral direction in the nature of notice to the petitioner or their interrogation or the contemplated prosecution for disobedience of the order would be null and void and of no legal effect. The petition is allowed on such short ground and it is not necessary to advert to any other aspect of the case.
The petition is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.