1978 PLP 353 (PLC)

Fakhruddin Farooqui for Appellant. S. P. Lodhi for Respondent Date of hearing: 30th August 1977 DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court directing the payment of Rs. 8,900 to the respondent on an application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant. His services were terminated with effect from 1-12‑1975 by letter dated, 29‑11‑1975. He claimed certain dues shown In the application which were not paid to him. So after service of the grievance notice be approached the Labour Court.

3. The application was resisted on various grounds. Subsequently the evidence of the respondent was recorded but no witness was produce by the appellant. The witness whose affidavit was filed did not appear for cross‑examination so the appellant was declared ex parte and his side was closed. An application was made for setting aside the ex parte order, which was allowed. Again on the adjourned hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant so again the side was closed but before any final order could be passed an application dated 27‑5‑1976 was made. Notice of this application was order to be issued. On the adjourned hearing objections were filed on behalf of the respondent but none appeard on behalf of the appellant. , So the case was adjourned for arguments. On the adjourned hearing the learned Representatives for the parties were present but at the request of the Representative of the appellant the case was adjourned as the diary shows that he was not ready to argue. On the adjourned hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellant and, therefore, case was adjourned for orders. Finally the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by this the present appeal had been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection that although an application dated 27‑5‑1976 was made and notice was all issued and this fixed for arguments yet without disposing, of the application the impugned order was passed and, therefore, serious irregularity was committed. I find considerable force in this contention. It was the duty A of the learned Labour Court to have disposed of the application before passing the final order. Mere absence did not man that no order was required to be passed on the aforesaid application. It ought to have been dis posed of before passing any final order. The learned Representative for the respondent has not succeeded in meeting this objection. He simply stated that the conduct of the appellant indicated that he was guilty of laches and adopted dilatory tactics. That may be so but this does not effectively provide the answer to the objection, which has been raised.

5. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the order and remand the case for disposal in accordance with law after passing a suitable order on the application dated 27‑5‑1976.