1. AWARD SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).-In this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant seeks re-instatement in service with full' benefit or in the alternative his legal dues, from the respondent.
2. The applicant's case is that he was employed as a coolie in the Bleaching Department of the respondent-Mill and had about 2 years of service to his credit. His daily wages were Rs. 539 per day. On 6th April 1971, when he reported for duty, he was not allowed to enter the Mill and was orally told that his services were terminated. Nothing was given to him in writing and no reason was assigned for termination of his services. He made a representation, dated 8th April 1971, to the respondent but to no effect. Consequently, he moved this application.
3. The respondent, in their written statement, admit that the applicant was employed as coolie in the Bleaching Department, for about 2 years, at the daily wages of Rs. 5.39 per day. They state that the Bleaching Department was closed and the services of the applicant were transferred to some other Department but he not only refused to work in that Department but also used abusive language. Hence, his services were terminated under Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, with benefits of all legal dues. The applicant was also informed that he will be paid all his legal dues when he made the representation, but he failed to collect the same. The respondent further states that they are willing to pay Notice Pay, Earned Wages, Gratuity and even Bonus to the applicant.
4. When the case came up for hearing, respondent was absent and their counsel withdrew his power for lack of instruction Consequently, the matter proceeded ex parte. The applicant has sworn an affidavit in support of his claim, is which he has reiterated the facts stated an his application. Ire states further that he continued reporting at the Mills for several days to collect his legal dues but these were not paid to him.
5. Since the averments made by the applicant in his affidavit stand unchallanged and there is no evidence in rebuttal by the respondent, I find no reasons to doubt the claim of the applicant.
6. Through the Reply Statement of the respondent, it appears that the applicant's service were terminated on account of misconduct. Consequently, the respondent ought to have adopted the procedure laid down in Standing Order 15 before terminating the services of the applicant. In such a case, they could not simply terminate his services under Standing Order 12. Therefore, the application is allowed and the respondent is directed to re-instate the applicant in service, with full back benefits and continuity in service.