1. DECISION ' These are the cross-appeals filed by Umar Din and the Management of the Colony Textile Mills Limited, Multan, against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 30th October 1973, under which Umar Din appellant, hereinafter mentioned the workman was directed to be re- instated to his job 'Six Sider Khata Ring Shift' "C" without any back benefits. The Management had ordered his dismissal from service for misconduct mainly relating to his habitual absence from duty without leave. The Management has filed the appeal, challenged the re-instatement of the workman while the latter has challenged the impugned order relating to the direction that the intervening period of his non-employment shall be treated as leave without pay. This order will dispose of both the appeals.
2. ' The services of the workman were terminated on 4th December 1972, by the Management for his aforesaid misconduct, after observing the necessary legal formalities. However, on the representation of the workman to the effect that he was an office-holder of the Workers' Union pending an industrial dispute. The order of his termination was suspended by the Management to secure order from the Junior Labour Court under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in ratification of the said dismissal. The Management moved the Punjab Labour Court (Central Zone), Lahore in this behalf and in the meanwhile the workman moved the Junior Labour Court, Multan, to grant him the benefits of pay from 4th December 1972 to 31st January 1973, when he remained unemployed as a result of the termination orders. The learned Junior Labour Court accepted the application,-vide its order, dated 6th February 1973, directing the Management to pay him the said wages. This order was challenged by the Management in the Labour Court in addition to the relief under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. During the pendency of these two petitions, it is pleaded on benalf of the Management, that the learned Court held that any petition under section 34 of the Ordinance could not necessarily be regarded an industrial dispute and as such the Management did not require to move that Court for any order under section 47 of the Ordinance for the dismissal of the workman. Consequently it is maintained that the Management-vide, its order, dated 13th August 1971, intimated the workman that the order dated 23rd January 1971, stood vacated and order of dismissal dated 4th December 1972, became operative. The workman was relieved of his job forthwith. The workman again moved the Junior Labour Court challenging the order of dismissal as illegal and not based on just enquiry which amounted to his victimization on account of his Union activities and which made for Unfair Labour Practice on the part of the Management.
3. ' The learned Junior Labour Court found that it was incumbent on the Management to give due opportunity to the workman to explain his position in view of the new development obliging the Management to withdraw its previous order of re-instatement and on that score the fresh order of dismissal was liable to be set aside.
4. ' The fact is not controverted on behalf of the Management that after the services of the workman were terminated on 4th December 1972, he was re-instated on 31st January 1973, on the sole ground that he represented to have been victimized on account of his membership in the executive committee of the Union. It is stated by the Management in the memorandum of appeal that after the order of dismissal dated 4th December 1972, the respondent was allowed to keep on working till the Management could get permission from the Labour Court for dismissing the respondent under section 47 of the Ordinance, that the said application was duly filed and that the Court held that no permission for the dismissal in question was necessary as the proceeding under section 34 of the Ordinance pending before the Court was not an industrial dispute. The Management however, failed to give any justification why the copy of relevant order of the Labour Court that the relevant petition under section 34 of the Ordinance then pending before the Court could not be regarded as industrial dispute and that no permission for dismissing the appellant workman was necessary which was not placed on the file of the learned lower Court, if at all any such order was passed by the Labour Court, on the other hand it is admitted on behalf of the Management that both the applications under section 47 of the Ordinance as well as the appeal filed against the order of the 'earned Junior Labour Court, dated 6th February 1973 were withdrawn by it which evidently amounted to dismissal of both of them. In this background of the circumstances the previous order could automatically revive on the basis of averment of the Management that the workman-appellant has not been victimized despite his allegation in this behalf on account of his Union activities as having been executive member of the Union. It was necessary for the Management either to get some definite order under section 47 of the Ordinance from the Labour Court or to call upon the appellant-workman to substantia'e his defence which was once accepted and order of dismissal suspended on a very definite grounds.
5. ' It is worthy of note that the re-instatement of the appellant-workman directed by the Management on 31st January 1973, stood confirmed in the order of the Junior Labourt Court, dated 6th February 1973, whereby his petition under section 25-A of the Ordinance for the back benefits of a short period between 4th December 1972 to 31st January 1973, were granted to him and an appeal filed in this behalf by the Management in the Labour Court was admittedly withdrawn. In such situation the Management could not pass a unilateral order to set aside the order of the re- instatement and enforce its order of dismissal dated 4th December 1972, without taking without stopping any fresh enquiry. This must be regarded an important omission on the part of the Management to ignore to bring on record on some authentic basis that as to what were the circumstances which justified the final dismissal of the appellant-workman on 13th August 1972, after his re-instatement in service from 31st January 1973. The argument that it was held by the Labour Court that petition under section 34 of the Ordinance could not be deemed as industrial dispute and as such no permission for the dismissal in question was necessary without placing any order, or evidence in this behalf on the record could not be sustained to declare the dismissal order dated 13th August 1973, as legally justified. The very admission on behalf of the Management that the application under section 47 of Ordinance was withdrawn by it amounted to its dismissal correspondingly vesting a right in the workman to challenge his dismissal as unjustified which position was temporarily acceded to by the Management through the order of re-instatement dated 31st January 1973. Such being the case I do not find any defect in the impugned order and is, therefore, upheld.
6. ' As regards the benefits of pay claimed by the appellant-workman from 13th August 1973, onward, he cannot be said to have made out a case in that behalf inasmuch as he was once found guilty of absence without leave and was later on re-instated to meet the same legal allegation of law and the case in this behalf does not appear to have been efficiently handled by the Management, both the appeals are thus dismissed.