1. DECISION ' This is an Revision Application No, 267 of 1998 under section 38(3-a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging the order, dated 30-5-1998 gassed by the learned Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad, whereby the applicant has been summoned to stand trial in Complaint.No,51 of 1998 tiled by the respondent. The impugned order reads as under:-- "Admit. Register. Issue summons to the accused. Hearing on 6-7-1998.
2. (Sd.)
3. Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad."
4. ' It is apparent from the copy of the order sheet filed by the applicant that a complaint dated 27-5- 1998 was filed in the learned Sindh Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad, under sections 54 and 55 of I.R.O., 1969 alleging breach of settlement dated 17-1-1998. The said complaint was presented in the office of the Court on 29-5-1998. The Clerk of the Court submitted the same for orders alongwith office note signed by him The learned Labour Court No, VI,' Hyderabad, was pleased to order on the same day i,e, 29-5-1998.
5. "Let the statement of the complainant be recorded on Oath."
6. ' Thereafter, on 30-5-1998 the order reproduced above was passed by the learned Sindh Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad. It is against this order dated 30-5-1998 that this revision application has been tiled.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad did not apply his mind while passing the impugned order. I find no substance in the submission because on the earlier day the learned Presiding Officer had ordered 'the statement of the complainant to be recorded on Oath. It was only then, that after recording the statement of the complainant that he ordered "the case to be admitted and registered against the applicant". It is not necessary that he must have given reasons for admitting and registering the ease. The learned Sindh Labour Court No, VI Hyderabad, after recording the statement of the complainant has applied his mind and thought it to be a prima facie case for admission and registration against the applicant.
8. ' I, therefore, find no substance in the revision application. It seems to be simply delaying tactic. Let the law take its own course. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed.
9. ' Order announced in open Court on 26th of March, 1999.