' These are two revision applications, filed against a common order dated 28-1-1999, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court No,5, rejecting the preliminary objections, raised by the applicant Bank before it.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant appears to have raised following legal objections in his reply statement before the learned Labour Court, which read as under:--
(1) That this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application, while the jurisdiction rests with N.I.R.C. Where the applicant had already instituted a case.
(2) That since the case is already pending before the N.I.R.C. Hence this Court cannot entertain this case during pendency of previously instituted also before N.I.R.C.
(3) That the department section where the applicant was posted has less than 20 employees hence the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 will not be applicable and this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction.
(4) That the petition is time-barred.
3. The learned Presiding Officer, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant record and the authorities, cited at the bar by the learned Advocate for the respondent (Bank) held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, giving the details of case, filed by the respondent (the employee) submitted that the respondent had filed a case before N.I.R.C. Challenging the charge-sheet and order of enquiry, earlier in point of time, and had obtained an ex parte stay order from the N.I.R.C. Against the applicant (Bank). After applicant Bank made appearance and pleaded their case the said stay order was discharged holding that there has been no unfair labour practice involved in the case. On enquiry, made by me to the learned counsel for the applicant to Bank, he candidly admitted that there is no case, at present, pending in the N.I.R.C.
4. Before adverting to this issue further, it is pertinent to note that so far as questions/issues Nos,3 and 4 are concerned, the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the same were questions of fact and law and ordered the respondent herein to file his affidavit-in-evidence on the next date of hearing i,e, 10-2-1999.
5. The Courts do not encourage picecemeal decisions. The Courts generally lean towards exercising jurisdiction instead of ousting it. The Court, having held that it has jurisdiction, let the matter take its own course as provided in law. Even, if after evidence and final arguments a decision is passed which may or may or may not be adverse to either of the party, It will be open to be agitated in appeal.
6. I do not find any incorrectness, illegality and impropriety in the impugned order on the face of record and it does not seem to me to be a fit case to invoke the inherent suo motu powers, vested in me under section 38(3-A) of the I.R.O., 1969. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Miscellaneous Applications Nos,35 and 36 of 1999 ' These are stay applications, which, having become infructuous, are also dismissed.