DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the preliminary objections.
2. The appellant terminated the services of 174 workers. It is said that the Union as Collective Bargaining Agent took up the matter with the appellant. Consequently, a grievance notice dated 10th May, 1976 was served by the General Secretary of the Union on behalf of all the workmen. Since the grievance was not redressed, an application to the Labour Court was filed by the General Secretary.
3. The application was resisted. Some preliminary objections were raised. The first objection which was taken was that every worker should have filed a separate application under Section 25-A, I. R.
O. and, therefore, the joint application made by the General Secretary was not maintainable. This objection was overruled in view of subsection (10) of Section 25-A, I.R.O. as added by an amendment dated 23rd December, 1975. The present application was filed in the Labour Court on 24th May, 1976. The second objection which was taker; was that the grievance notice should have been given individually by the workers and not a joint notice on their behalf. This objection was also overruled in view of the provisions of the aforesaid subsection (10). The third objection which was taken was that grievance notice served by Mr. Wasiullah in his personal capacity and, therefore, it was bad. This objection was also overruled on the ground that Mr. Wasiullah had served that notice not in the personal capacity but as the General Secretary of the C.B.A. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
4. Before I proceed to deal with the pleas taken on behalf of the appellant I would like to dispose of the objections raised on behalf of the respondent. It was urged that the Junior Labour Court had disposed of preliminary objections and. therefore, it was not a decision on merits and no appeal was maintainable. There is no force in this contention. Section 37 (3) provides an appeal against the decision of the Labour Court under sec--tion 25-A, I.R.O. It does not speak of a final decision. So the decision on a preliminary objection is also a decision and as such is appealable. This view is supported by the case of M. O. Basha v. The Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court III, Karachi and 5 others (PLD 1975 Kar. 57), decided by the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan.
5. Turning to the objections on behalf of the appellant it was urged before me that the application made by Mr. Wasiullah under section 25-A, I. R. O. to the Labour Court was not maintainable. I find no force in this contention in view of the provisions of subsection (10) read with sub-sec--tion (4) of section 25-A, I. R. O. When C.B.A. can make an application o behalf of an individual worker to the Labour Court, there is no reason t suppose that C.B.A. is incompetent to make a joint application on behalf of all the workmen having a common cause of action. Subsection (10) cannot be segregated and read independently of subsection (4).
6. The second objection which was taken is that the grievance notice was; served on 10th May, 1976 when Mr. Wasiullah had no authority from the workers to take up the matter as the written authority authorising Mr. Wasi--ullah, the General Secretary of the Union as C.B.A. to send grievance notice and take further action, was filed in the Labour Court on 24th May, 1976; along with the application made under section 25-A, I.R.O and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the letter of authority was given by the workers on the same date. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the General Secretary was authorized prior to the giving of the grievance notice. This is a disputed question of fact and needs evidence. Since this aspect of the case was note, dealt with by the Labour Court it is not possible for me to go into this,, question. I, therefore, remand the case to the Labour Court for taking evidence and dispose of the objection on merits. The appeal is accordingly allowed.