MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.--Mushtaq Ahmad employed under the respondent as Fitter drove out a bus without any authorization on the 1st of March, 1975. He met with an accident and killed a seven years' old boy. He was charged-sheeted, an inquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service on 25-7-1975. He felt aggrieved and moved an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which was dismissed on 6-3-1978. An appeal, however, against this order was accepted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 19-11-1978 by which the decision of the Labour Court was set aside and the appellant was directed to be re--instated with back benefits. A writ petition was filed against it by the District Manager which was accepted by a judgment of the Lahore High Court on 4-7-1979. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. It was submitted that section 15(4)of the West Pakistan Industrial and, Commercial Employment (Standing. Orders) Ordinance, 1968 as it originally stood, only provided that no order of dismissal shall be made untilhe has been informed of the alleged misconduct and is equally free to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The words "within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer" were introduced by and Amendment made by Act XI of 1976. Since in the present case the Notice was not served within one month, no action could have been taken against the petitioner. There is nothing to show that this amendment was retrospec--tive in operation and since in the present case the misconduct took place on the 1st of March, 1975, that is to say, long before the 23rd December, 1975 when the amendment was made, it cannot be said to be operative so as to affect the cases relating to period before the Amendment was brought into force. We have no reason to differ with the High Court on this point.
3. It was further submitted that the charge against the petitioner was that he took the bus as a Fitter and killed a boy, but he could not be saddled with the responsibility for the killing and, therefore, the charge did not stand proved againsthim. The charge was that be is a Fitter and not driver but in spite of it he drove the bus out and this has admittedly been proved. There is, therefore, no merit in this submission either. The petition dismissed.