DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, wheieby the petition filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was allowed by the Labour Courts in ex parte proceedings, and the petitioner was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. Respondent Raees Ahmed was employed as a Teemer in Casting . Section of the Steel Mills on permanent basis. On 6-11-1993 there were only four workers for working on the machine instead, of six, with the result the proper rest interval could not be allowed to the workers including the petitioner, in rotation. After expiry of four hours' time, which was the maximum for such workers, the petitioner was asked to work on another machine, which he refused to do. This led to wordy war fare. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for unruly behaviour. A domestic enquiry was held and he was dismissed from service. He served the Corporation with grievance notice and then filed a petition before the Labour Court. The respondent was served according to the Bailiff's endorsement dated 5-5-1994. Mr. Abdus Samad appeared as an Advocate for the Steel Mills. He took a date for filing power and also the written statement. On that date namely 10-7-1994 he remained absent without any intimation. Since the Advocate had appeared on behalf of the respondent, there was no question regarding the service not being satisfactory. The learned Labour Court, therefore, passed an ex parte order and the petitioner filed Affidavit by way of ex parte proof. The grievance petition was accordingly allowed as the evidence was not rebutted and the petitioner was ordered to be re-instated.
3. Thus, no sufficient reason has been urged for setting aside the ex parte order and directing re- hearing of the grievance petition. The points which were not raised before the Labour Court cannot be heard at the stage of appeal for deciding the case. The judgment of the Labour Court is, therefore, maintained and the appeal is dismissed.