' Maulvi Muhammad's grievance petition, under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accepted ex parte on 15-5-1998 by the learned Labour Court No,2, Lahore. The order has been appealed against by the TECH Society.
2. The Colony has its location on the canal bank near the New Campus, Lahore. Maulvi Muhammad served the Society as Head Mali for about 1/1-2 years, from 6-2-1991 to 15-7-1992. His services were terminated by reason of certain acts of misconduct attributed to him. The nature of his job was purely temporary, and according to the appellant, and no legal formalities needed to be observed.
Still, however, the prescribed procedure was pursued and the employee was ousted from service, not in an whimsical or arbitrary manner. The employee had recourse to the Labour Court on 4-10- 1992, and the final order in his favour was rendered by the learned Labour Court on 15-5-1999.
3. It has been pointed out that the employee could not adduce any evidence over such a long period and eventually he alone made his statement (on 7-11-1997), and that too in absence of the other side, ex parte proceedings having been taken against the respondent Society. The employee's version has, thus, gone unrebutted. The appellants respondents in the learned lower Court, maintain that ex parte proceedings had been ordered against them on the basis of no valid premises and following P.Os'. Repeated absence on leave, service upon them had not been effected in a satisfactory manner. This aspect of the case needs further probe and the ends of justice warrant that both sides be enabled to participate in the proceedings and have assistance of their counsel too. There was no cause' for hurry, particularly when the proceedings had lingered on over several years, beginning of October, 1992 to mid-May, 1998.
4. I find that in reply, the respondents before the Labour Court had taken up a number of technical objections, and even on factual plane the grievance petitioner's version had been controverted, on premises, fairly sound and solid. It had essentially to be seen by the Court if the Society the grievance petitioner was serving, could be treated as a commercial or industrial establishment.
The strength of its staff had to be determined, before proceeding further. It seems that the employee was claiming to have become a permanent workman by operation of law, as he had remained in service of the Society for well over a year. His reinstatement was ordered by Labour Court, without verifying the fact whether or not, by then he had attained the age of superannuation.
It was a Cooperative Society, working of which was to be governed by the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Applicability of the provisions of the Labour Law was a matter of doubt, according to the Society, which had also taken up a plea that the grievance petition was time-barred and the statutory grievance notice had not preceded the submission of the petition.
5. There would, thus, arise a number of important questions, which must 6e met with by the employee satisfactorily, before the Labour Court really embarks upon the examination and adjudication of the plea taken up by him to the effect that he had been wronged and been ousted from service in an unlawful, inequitable and unjust manner. The decision of the lower Court in scanty and neither comprehensive nor well-reasoned. I would set it aside, on acceptance of the appeal, although with no order as to costs. The petition is entrusted to learned Labour Court No,1, Lahore, for its disposal in accordance with law, on withdrawal from learned Labour Court No,2, Lahore. Next date in the transferee Court would be 11-12-1999. Matter having already unduly been delayed, an effort shall be made to dispose it of finally within a period of 3 to 4 months.