1. These appeals are preferred against one consolidated order passed by the learned Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lyallpur, on the petitions of the respondents, under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, by which they were re-instated.
2. As common question of law and fact is involved in both the appeals, I also propose to dispose them of by one order.
3. Brief facts rising to these appeals are that Mr. Shabbir Hussain, conductor No. 125 and Mr. Safdar Hussain, conductor No. 52 and one Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, driver No. 194 of the G. T. S., Lyallpur were dismissed by the management on the charge of fraud and corruption under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation (West Pakistan) Removal of Undesirable Persons Ordinance, 1965. They went to the Junior Labour Court and by its impugned order they were re-instated. Road Transport Corporation had filed appeals against this order. So far as it relates to Muhammad Yousaf driver, he has been re-instated with back benefits for the reasons best known to them. Learned Representative of the Board has urged before me that the above cited Ordinance of 1965 is a special enactment therefore, this Court has got no jurisdiction. Learned representative of the respondents is of the view that as an industrial dispute was pending before the conciliator at the the of dismissal of the respondents who are the office-bearers of the C. B. A. Union, permission of the Labour Court was a pre-requisite under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969.
4. As the Road Transport Corporation (West Pakistan) Removal of Undesirable Persons Ordinance, 1965 hits the pro--visions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 appellant was constrained to take action and hold inquiry only under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and not under the Road Transport Corporation (West Pakistan)
5. Removal of Undesir--able Persons Ordinance, 1965. He has further stressed on this point that even under this Ordinance a reasonable opportunity to show cause was not provided to the respondents as they were not provided with the relevant documents on the basis of which show- cause notice was issued to the respondents.
6. Under these circumstances, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 cannot be overridden by any provincial statute as Industrial Relations Ordi--nance, 1969 is a central statute. Inquiry should have been held under Standing Order No. 15 and permission from the conciliator was absolutely necessary. It will not be out of place to say that the appellant has never controverted this fact that industrial dispute was not pending before the conciliator. As such averment of the respondent that a dispute was pending is to be taken as proved.
7. For the foregoing reasons I see no ground to interfere with the order of the Junior Labour Court, it is therefore, maintained and appeals are dismissed.