1. ' This is a revision application under section 38(3-a), of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against an order, dated 22-7-1999, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,
1. The order, being short, is reproduced as under:-- "22-7-1999.
2. ' Applicant and his Advocate are present. Though the matter is fixed for order but since the burden is on the applicant to prove his contention, it is necessary and in the interest of justice to direct the applicant to produce either the charter of duties or any other document to show the nature of the duties assigned to him and also to produce any other document pertaining to his employment during his posting at Karachi office of the respondent.
3. ' Put off to : 29-7-1999.
4. (Sd.)
5. ' P/Officer."
2. It is also seems necessary to reproduce the case diary of the later dates, which will clarify the whole position. The further case diary is also reproduced as under:-- "29-7-1999.
6. ' Applicant and Advocate for parties are present. Advocate for applicant complied the order of the Court, dated 22-7-1999, copy of which supplied to respondent side. Put off to 2-8-1999 for objection if any.
7. (Sd.)
8. P/Officer."
9. "6-8-1999 ' Applicant and Advocates for parties are present. Both the Advocates advanced their further arguments. Advocate for respondent wants to submits some citations. Put off to 9-8-1999 for submission of citations.
10. (Sd.)
11. P/Officer."
12. The very filing of the revision application is misconceived in as much as the direction to produce the document was given to the respondent/worker and not the applicant/employer and the later diary, dated 29-7-1999, shows that order, dated 22-7-1999, for production of certain documents, was complied with. In fact, arguments were heard and the time was allowed on the last date of hearing by the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the applicant/employer took time to produce certain citations but instead of appearing before the learned Labour Court with case law on the subject and get the case decided on merit, he rushed to this Tribunal.
4. I do not find any incorrectness, illegality or even impropriety in the order, impugned in this revision application. The revision application is dismissed in limine. Miscellaneous Application No,232 of 1999, having become infructuous, is also dismissed.