' Litigation inter se the parties, is pending before the Punjab Labour Court No,2 Lahore. According to the averments reflected in paragraph 3 (iii) of the petition, on 5-7-1999 as the evidence of the respondent-bank i,e, Crescent Investment Bank Limited, was not produced, the Labour Court closed the case for recording the evident of the said bank. It is said that the learned Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore was constrained to pass this order after providing many opportunities to the respondent-bank for production of its evidence. In this connection, different' dates given by the Labour Court are reflected in this paragraph.
2. It is said that the respondent bank has now filed a revision petition under section 38(3-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which is pending before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No,l.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No,1 without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without perusing the record of the case, vide its order, dated 13-7-1999, had stayed the proceedings before the Labour Court and adjourned the case for 28-9-1999. It was said that the order in question could not have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in view of the provisions of section 38(3-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and as the petitioner was not heard before the passing of the order impugned, this petition was being filed as there was no other alternate or efficacious remedy available for an early disposal of the matter.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and subsequently the learned counsel for the respondent at length:
5. The relevant provisions of section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are reproduced below:-- "Labour Appellate Tribunal.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(3-a) The Tribunal may, on its own motion at any time, call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Ordinance in which a Labour Court within its jurisdiction has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of such order, and may pass such order, in relation thereto as it thinks fit: ' Provided that no order under this subsection shall be passed revising or. Modifying any order adversely affecting any person without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(4) ..............................................................................................................................
(5) .........................................................................................................................
(6) .............................................................
(7) .......................................
(8) .........................................................................................................................
6. In this case, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has not so far revised or modified the order under reference which necessitated reasonable opportunity of hearing before the passing such an order. Rather it has fixed date for hearing i,e, 28-9-1999.
7. The impugned order has also been seen. The learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal while fixing the date for 28-9-1999, has also requisitioned the record for purposes M its perusal. The learned counsel for the petitioner should rest assure that after this perusal, the delay on the part of the respondent which was being complained by the learned counsel for the petitioner, shall be seen. The learned counsel for the respondent has assured that he will not cause any delay before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and will address arguments on that date.
8. Since both the parties are ready to address the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 28- 9-1999 and the record of the case shall also be there, this Court deems it proper in asking the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to hear the arguments on 28-9-1999 and to dispose of the matter before 30th of September, 1999. After these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.