DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the First Labour Court, Karachi, dated May 25, 1971, whereby the learned Court found the appellant to be not guilty of habitual neglect of work and ordered his re-instatement. The Court, however, did not award back benefits to the appellant. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant was charge-sheeted for having not issued tickets to 36 passengers, who had boarded the bus. For the omission on the part of the appellant to issue tickets to the passengers, he was charge-sheeted under Section 7(2)(i) of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 (hereinafter called the Transport Workers Ordinance) for habitual negligence. On j the face of it, a single at of omission on the part of the appel--lant could not amount to habitual negligence of work. The learned Court, however, held considering that the appellant had neglected to issue tickets that he was not entitled to back benefits.
3. Mr. Amanullah Qureshi, the learned representative for the appellant relies on rule 6 (3) of the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the Rules). The said provision of rule reads as under :----- "If the charge is proved the worker shall be deemed to have been absent from duty from the date of suspension and shall not be entitled to any remuneration for such period. If the charge is not proved, the worker shall be entitled to the same wages as he would have received if he had been on duty."
4. Mr. Amanullah Qureshi, relying upon the above pro--vision of the rule contends that the learned Court having found the appellant not to be guilty of the charge, he should have awarded the wages which the appellant would have been entitled if he was on duty. I have come to the conclusion, considering the above provision, that the appellant is entitled to wages. The question, however. Is up to what date the wages should be allowed to the appellant.
5. The appellant was dismissed on 27th January 1969. Thereafter, he persuaded his legal remedy by making represent--ations to the Transport Authorities. The last order was passed by the Director, Central Zone, Road Transport Corporation, Multan, on 9th June 1971, whereby the Director dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant in his ' application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations. Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), stated that he had not received any intimation that his appeal was dismissed. This fact, how--ever, was categorically denied by the Road Transport Corpora--tion. The appellant thereafter, in his statement before the Court did not state that he had not received any intimation that his appeal had been dismissed by the Director, Road Transport Corporation. Mr. Azmatullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the respondent has produced the original file regarding the intimation to the appellant that his appeal had been dis--missed. It appears that the appellant was directly informed by the Director on 9th June 1969, on his home address that his appeal had been dismissed. The fact, however, remains that the appellant did not dare allege in his statement that he had not received intimation that his appeal was dismissed. 'I would hold that the appellant had received intimation that his appeal had been dismissed. The appellant waited for almost about 8 month before he made an application under section 34 of the Ordinance on 3rd February 1970. He also withdrew this application some the in July or August 1970, and then made another application on 28th November 1970, which was disposed of by the learned Court on 25th May 1971. The appellant has not given any reason, whatsoever, as to why he waited for about 8 months before making the application under section 34 of the Ordinance. In these circumstances, I would grant back benefits but not for the whole of the period that the appellant unemployed from the date that he was dismissed to the date on which his appeal was allowed. He would not be entitled to back benefits for a period of 8 months from the date that he was dismissed to the date that he made the first application under section 34 of the Ordinance and also for 3 months when he had withdrawn his application and made the second application on 28th November 1970. In all he would not be entitled to wages for a period of 11 months only.
6. In the result, the Department to pay him back bene--fits from the, date that the appellant was dismissed to the date that he was rah re-instated excluding the wages for, 11 months.