DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24th November 1976 and 10th December, 1976 passed by the Labour Court.
2. The respondent was in the service of the appellant. He was removed from service on 6-8-1976.
He approached the Labour Court after serving the grievance notice upon the appellant. According to him his removal was illegal and it was without any reason and without observing the formalities required by law.
3. The notice of the application was served upon the appellant who appeared on the date of hearing but did not file any written statement. The case was adjourned to 15-11-1976 when Mr. Abdul Qadir, Advocate appeared and filed Mukhtiarnama. At the request of the Advocate the case was adjourned for filing written statement. On the adjourned hearing neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared and, therefore, the Labour Court proceeded ex parte. The affidavit filed by the respondent was accepted and the application was allowed by ordering re-instatement with full back benefits. This order was passed on 24-11-1976.
4. Subsequently an application was made for setting aside ex parte order. It was supported by a medical certificate about the illness of the appellant. The learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that it was not indicated in the medical certificate that the appellant was prevented from attending the Court. He, therefore, dismissed the application' by order dated 10-12-1976.
5. Dealing with the first order dated 24-11-1976 no exception can be taken. The case was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the appellant for filing written statement but on the adjourned hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Consequently the Labour Court was fully justified in proceeding ex parte. Since there was no evidence in rebuttal the affidavit filed by the appellant was rightly accepted. Consequently the re-instatement on the basis of the evidence available on record cannot be questioned.
6. So far the second order dated 10-12-1976 is concerned it is not an award and, therefore, no appeal lies against that order.
7. In the result the appeal is summarily dismissed.