1. MAHMOOD AHMAD SOOFI (CHAIRMAN). The complainant Muhammad Azam (the son of Muhammad Sharif) who is an Oil Greaser employed by the Government Transport Service, Multan, has instituted this complaint under Standing Order No. 18(b) of the 'West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968' against the respondent; the Road Transport Corporation, Egerton Road, Lahore. The complainant has averred that he was employed as an Oil Greaser under the Government Transport Service, Multan. He has, however, not specified the exact date with effect from which his employment began. According to the complainant the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Multan, terminated the employment of the complainant by his office order No. 6.52 dated the 22nd of May 1--69 with retrospective effect from the date 5th of May 1969, on the ground of the alleged absence of the complainant from duty. On the complainant's own showing his illness was the cause of his absence from duty and before the termination of his employment the complainant's application for leave, together with a medical certificate, had reached the office of the Government Transport Service, Multan. On recovering his health the complainant obtained a fitness certificate and reported himself for duty on the date 21st of May 1969. Nevertheless, he was not allowed to resume his duty and on the following day the 22nd of May 1969-an order regarding the termination of the complainant's service was passed. The complai--nant has further declared that he was not served with any charge---sheet before his dismissal nor was any enquiry into any charges against him ever instituted by the respondent.
2. However, the complainant addressed an appeal on the date 26th of May 1969 to the Director, Road Transport Corporation, Central Zone, Multan, against the order of the District Manager regarding the complainant's dismissal. That appeal was accepted 'and the appellate authority directed that the complainant Muhammad Azam should be re-instated in service, nevertheless the appellate authority also recorded a decision to the fact that no emoluments should be paid to the complainant for the intervening period (5th May 1969 until 23rd August 1969). The re-instatement of the petitioner took effect from the 26th of August 1969.
3. The present complaint of Muhammad Azam is directed against the order of Members (Administration), Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, by which the revision petition, (wrongly des- -cribed in the complaint under consideration as an appeal) of the complainant Muhammad Azam was rejected after the complainant had been given an opportunity of a personal hearing. This order of rejection of the complainant's revision petition was com--municated to the complainant through Memo. No. 593. M. T. N. APP-69, dated 14th of April 1970 by the Assistant Director (Administration) for Member (Administration), Road Transport Corporation, Lahore. The complainant to his complaint under consideration has attached an unsigned and uncertified copy.
4. After his revision petition had been rejected by the Member (Administration), Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, the complainant sent a notice under Standing Order No. 18(a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, on the date 22nd of April 1970, to the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore but according to the complainant's version of the facts of the matter he did not receive any reply within the prescribed time limit, hence he has filed this complaint in the present Labour Court. The complainant has prayed that this Labour Court might order the respondent to pay the complainant his 'tankhahah' and other dues for the period 5th of May 1969 to-25 of August 1969.
5. The respondent in response to the complaint m question filed a reply. In that reply the respondent stated that the petitioner-complainant had, during the course of his employ--ment under the Government Transport Service, Multan, absented himself from duty from the date 5th May 1969, without any prior permission. A leave application accompanied by a certificate from a medical practitioner was received from the complainant on the date 17th of May 1969, after the complainant had already absented himself for more than ten days, hence the leave applied for by the complainant was not sanctioned and the complainant's service was terminated for misconduct in the form of unauthorised absence from duty. Eventually the com--plainant filed a revision petition before the Member (Administra--tion), Road Transport Corporation against the order of the com--plainant's appellate authority by which the complainant's wages for the above- mentioned intervening period were disallowed and the revision petition was rejected. The respondent's reply con--cluded with an affirmation of the fact that no breach of any provi--sions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ--ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, the respondent had committed 1968, hence the complaint under consideration was not maintainable in law and deserved to be dismissed.
6. The argument of the respective Representatives of the two contending parties. All the relevant documents have also been examined by me minutely.
7. The complainant's Representative, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Naz, has found himself at a loss to convince me that the respondent has in this case deprived the complainant of any specific benefits accruing to the complainant under this Ordinance. On the complainant's own showing he has already been re- instated in service by his appellate- authority, i.e. the Director, Road Trans--port Corporation, Central Zone, Multan. That order of re-instate--ment was issued in response to an appeal instituted before that authority by the complainant himself. The text of that order of the appellate authority was worded as follows: "Your appeal dated 26-5-69 on the above-noted subject has been considered and after affording you an opportunity of personal hearing the same has been accepted without pay for theth intervening period You should, therefore, report the District Manager, G. T. S., Multan for duty accordingly. You are however severely warned not to repeat such irregu--larity in future."
8. It is transparently clear that the re-instatement of the complainant did not occur as a result of any order of this Labour Court, but was the consequence of a decision recorded by the Appellate authority of the complainant under the rules applicable to the employees of the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, to which Corporation the Government Transport Service, Multan is administratively subordinate. The 'West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968' is absolutely silent in regard to the question whether a dismissed workman formerly employed by the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, who has been re-instated in his employment by the Road Transport Corporation itself under its own rules is entitled to receive any wages or 0the benefits for the period that might have intervened from the date of his dismissal from employment and the date of hi A re-instatement by an order of the Road Transport Corporation itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate the point that the question .of granting any emoluments to such a workman lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the re-instating authority, which in the present case is the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore. This Labour Court has no jurisdiction under provisions of the above-mentioned Ordinance for intervening in such a situation to the advantage of the re-instated workman. It is essential to note here that throughout the text of his complaint the complainant himself has not cited any specific provisions of the 'West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968', under which a workman who finds himself in the complainant's peculiar circumstances is entitled to any sort of benefits.
9. For all the above recorded reasons this complaint of Muhammad Azam (the son of Muhammad Sharif) is dismissed. It should be clearly understood by both parties to this case that the above order of this Labour Court is final and non---appeals able in view of the provisions of clauses (c) and (d) of Standing Order No. 18 of the `West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.