1. ' This appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter referred as the Ordinance impugns the legality of the order dated 24-2-1994 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haripur by which the preliminary objection of the respondent that the joint petition under section 25-A (10) of the Ordinance on behalf of all the petitioner-appellants was not maintainable, was accepted and consequently the petition was dismissed as incompetent in its present form.
2. ' The factual background of the controversy is that the petitioner-appellants were working as Assembly Workers in the establishment of the respondent. The workers formed trade union and the petitioners were elected as the office-bearers of the union on 19-2-1992. The petitioners applied for registration of the union and on 20-2-1992 they notified the names of the office-bearers to the respondent. This annoyed the respondent and the petitioners Nos.4 and 5 were charge-sheeted for absence from duty for various periods and they replied the charges. But, thereafter, they were not allowed entry in the factory and ultimately all the petitioners were dismissed from service on 23-2- 1992 by a verbal order. The objection of the petitioners is that the provisions of Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance had been violated as their services could not be terminated through verbal order as the law requires that such an order should be in writing and shall contain explicit reasons justifying the order. In the written statement the first preliminary objection which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is to the effect that the present petition is not competent under section 25-A(10) of the Ordinance as the petitioners have different cause of action. On merit, the allegations, in the petition, were refuted. {{PAGE }BLUR}} ' It is to be noted that this written statement was filed on 15-12-1992 and on 11-1-1993 the list of witnesses was filed and thereafter the case was adjourned for evidence to 4-2-1993. The matter lingered on for some dates without any progress when on 5-5-1993 the respondents filed the application for the dismissal of the petition mainly on the ground as mentioned in para. 3 of the application which reads: "That the present petition under section 25-A has been arned counsel in support of their respective viewpoints and weihe le igh the record. At the very preliminary objections it -- is to be noted that in the written statement the with different cause oPt to the appeal was that the petitioner-appellants the Ordinance whereas as could not file petition under section 25-A(10) of petition the reason for t application dated 5-5-1993 for dismissal of the filed by C.B.A. Which -ial has been shown as that the petition has been authorised horised to file such an application. It thus appears that in these two non-maintainability of the petit7IY different stances have been taken for or non-petition is that petitioner In any case the grievance expressed in the ia ioi -ta.r ants have been removed from service mala fidely on account of retaliation and of which they ultimately Nth:3' were active in forming the trade union that they tried to attend to their oiethe office-bearers. They have also alleged from doing so. They have also kangudttioin atjoall tohfe tehneqmuirywebruet dwisemretspsreedvefnrotemd service through verbal order on 231-1%) aid this dismissal was because of the alleged absence of all the petitionr-appella=s from duty. These facts were controverted in the written statemet. Under action 36 of the Ordinance the Labour Conn shall beyrt deemed to be Civil Cou ds shall k l 11 ibee o governed Order I, Rules b by Civil9, Procedure Code. The provisions of :ivil Procedninr, Code od 10 and 12 and also Order 2, Rule I and various ohers were required to have been kept into consideration while tisposing of the application. All the relevant facts which gave rise and which were the foundation of the present petition would constitute cause of action. Tae facts and circumstances having links with one another in point of time and purpose or as cause and effect and also as to whether the various acts are so related to produce a particular result were also required to be ascertained and established in evidence It is obvious that no solid finding could be given about common grievance Jr common cause of action unless the above relevant facts had beer established. All these can be ascertained if the parties are allowed to produce evidence and in absence of evidence no effective finding can be given about it. But it is curious to note that the Labour Court has decided all these disputed points without recording any evidence. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Labour Court te allow both the parties to lead evidence and on the basis of this evidence decide the factum of competency of the grievance petition afresh. Parties would bear their own costs. H.B.T./206/N.- W.F.P. .
3. 1996 {{PAGE }BLUR}}