1. DECISION ' These are three Revision Applications bearing Nos.LAK-269 of 1998, LAK-270 of 1998 and LAK-271 of 1998 under section 38(3-a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the order, dated 28th of August, 1998 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under:-- "I have heard learned counsels of the respondents and also gone through the relevant record and case-law, relied upon by him, so as the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contentions raised here before are mainly requiring evidence and the same are obviously touching the finality of the subject-matter. Therefore, let the contentions argued hereunder be decided at the stage of final disposal of the matter.
2. ' Petitioner is directed to lead the evidence."
3. ' The impugned order is the same in all the three revision applications which are, therefore, disposed of by this order.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant, Inter alia, contended that the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.VIII (Larkana). did not determine the legal objections raised by the applicant as to the maintainability of the Application No.5 of 1997 filed by the respondent under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and without assigning any reasons held that those objections would be decided at the final stage of the disposal of the matter.
5. ' The learned counsel referred to me Annexure 'A' regarding preliminary legal objections as 'A' to 'J'.
6. On a plain reading of the impugned order to say the least is that the impugned order is a non- speaking order, it does not at all refer to the contentions raised or the law relied upon by the leaned counsel which, for the sake of convenience of the learned labour Court, had also been incorporated in his written arguments. It seems that. the learned counsel for A the applicant had raised legal objections as to the jurisdiction of the Court and maintainability of the application which are pure and simple questions of law which could be decided on the basis of the admitted facts already on record. Moreover, it is settled law that the questions of the jurisdictional nature should be decided at the commencement of the proceedings and not at the conclusion of the trial.
7. If an authority is needed the same may be found in Full Bench Judgment of Supreme Court reported as Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Karachi and others v. Mannu Khan and 3 others, (1973 SCM R 62).
8. ' There are two modes open to me to decide this matter, one by hearing arguments in full and decide all the questions of law by myself and the other is to remand the case. I suggested these two modes of deciding the matters to learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani as well as Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Lakho. By residing the first mode I think it will neither be proper nor in the interest of justice because if the law points raised in the matter are decided by this Court, it will deprive one of the parties the right of filing appeal which is a vested right of the litigant provided in the law. Both the counsel, therefore, suggested the second mode.
9. I, therefore, by consent of counsel for the parties set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned Presiding Officer. Sindh Labour Court No.VIII (Larkana), with the direction, to decide 'the pure legal objections of jurisdictional nature first.