1. ' The applicant was employed as Machine Operator in the Security Safe Keeping Department of the Investment Corporation of Pakistan and had served there for almost 8 years. The applicant had been sick for quite sometimes and was forced to take casual leave due to the unfortunate sickness. On 17-7-1982 was served with a charge-sheet, the allegation in the charge-sheet, according to petitioner were not such which called for major punishment under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1959 which governed his service. The applicant replied the same, which was not found satisfactory by the respondent, hence an enquiry was initiated which, too, was fake. The enquiry commenced on 18-9-1982, after the mandatory period of one month. After the completion of the enquiry the applicant was not given a chance to further explain his position nor a show- cause notice was issued to him apprising him of the proposed punishment. On 15-12-1982 the applicant was dismissed from service and he served the respondent with a grievance notice on 12- 2-1983 which was rejected by the respondent on 20-2-1983. Hence this petitioner requesting the Court to declare the dismissal as void, illegal and inoperative in the eyes of law and directing the respondent to re-instate the applicant with full back benefits.
2. ' The respondent contested the petition and filed their Reply Statement denying the averments of the application. The respondent states that the applicant was never serious in performing his duties and indulged in activities subversive of discipline rules and regulation. He was also habitually absenting from his duties without any information and permission. His reply to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory and the enquiry was ordered. He was duly informed in writing about the enquiry and directed to attend enquiry on 17-8-1982 at 3.00 p.m. The applicant continued his acts of misconduct even thereafter. The applicant attended the enquiry and participated therein. On completion of the enquiry he was dismissed. The enquiry proceedings were most fair and the applicant was given every opportunity to defend himself. The respondents have taken a legal plea to the maintainability of the petition. According to the respondent the services in the respondent establishment is governed by the Wage Commission Award which provides for an appeal which the applicant has not filed hence the present petition is incompetent.
3. ' The parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence. The applicant filed his own affidavit as (Exh. 3) and has been cross-examined. On behalf of the respondent affidavit of Nisar Ahmad has been filed is (Exh. 4). He, too, has been cross-examined by the respondent of the petitioner.
4. I have carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is surprising that neither of the parties have produced the charge-sheet given to the applicant. There are a number of defects in the enquiry. The main defect apparent is that the Enquiry Officer has not been examined. In view of the allegations made by the applicant the respondent should have examined the enquiry officer or at least the respondent should have made an effect to produce the enquiry papers for the scrutiny of the Court. There is also nothing on the record to show if any show-cause notice was ever issued to the applicant after A the completion of enquiry to apprise him of the proposed punishment to be given to him and to give him a chance to further explain his position.
5. ' Thus it will appear that the enquiry as a whole was defective and the order passed in consequence of the report of the enquiry Officer is also defective and could not be sustained. But in the face of the legal plea taken by the respondent as to the maintainability of the petition requires a careful consideration. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 does not apply in the matter. It is argued by him that after the Wage Commission Award the applicability of the Standing Orders Ordinance to the terms and conditions of the workers of Banks and financial institution has been withheld. Hence the Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable to the applicant and his services will be governed by the Wage Commission Award.
6. ' I have carefully considered this contention of the learned Representative of the respondent which is not without force. The indrodutory clause of the Wage Commission Award item/act 2 clearly shows that the Wage Commission was required to fix rates of wages and to determine all other terms and conditions of service of all categories of workers in banks and financial institutions, which have also been specified. The respondent's same appears at serial No. X in this list of the financial institutions. This, therefore, clearly shows that the terms and conditions of service in the respondent establishment would be governed by the Wage Commission Award hence the Standing Orders Ordinance will not apply. The Wage Commission Award makes it mandatory for the employee to file a departmental appeal/revision before he could come to Court. Admittedly, there is nothing on the record to indicate if the applicant had ever filed an appeal to the department before coming to Court. In absence of this the petition of the applicant seems incompetent hence it cannot be considered.
7. ' I am, therefore, clear in my mind that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief by this Court on the present application which is not maintainable in the above-discussed situation. It is accordingly dismissed.