DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated January 24, 1973, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, dis--missed the application of the appellant under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The appellant was employed as a Conductor. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct on 17th August 1969 and dismissed from service on 21st August 1969 He appealed to the Director Traffic on 18th September 1969 and the sane was dismissed on 11th February 1970. Thu appellant riled an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1963 (hereinafter called the Ordinance of 1958), on 9th March 3970, which was dismissed on 21st October 1970, as not maintainable. The Ordinance of 1968 was repealed on 13th November 1969. The application under section 38 of the Ordinance of 1968 was therefore not maintainable. The appellant, therefore, made the present application on 14th November 1970.
2. The learned Labour Court in the first place held that the applica--tion was a belated one. Mr. A.
Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, contends that it is not so. There is force in the contention of Mr. Majeed, The appellant was pursuing his remedy ever since he was dismissed from service in 1969. He made the application giving rise to the appeal on 14th November 1970, soon after his application under section 38 of the Ordinance of 1968 was dismissed. In the circumstances of the present case I would hold that the application does not suffer from laches.
4. On merit, Mr. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that the appellant having not been given a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report, could not successfully contest the same in appeal before the Director Traffic. It was submitted that had the appellant known the grounds on which Report of the Enquiry Officer was based, he may have succeeded in satisfying the Director, Traffic, that there was no merit in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. In this connection, Mr. Majeed relied on a case of Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others (1972PLC37), in support of his contention that the supply of Enquiry Officer's Report was a must. He also relied on another case of Wasidad v. Road Transport Corporation, Lahore (1972 PLC 500). 1 would hold that the appellant had been prejudiced because of non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's Report in prosecuting his appeal before the Director, Traffic. I would set aside the award of the learned Labour Court and order the appellant to be re-instated.
The respondent to supply a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report to the appellant to enable him to prosecute his appeal before the Appellate Authority. The back benefits will depend on the result of the order to be passed by the Appellate Authority. If the appellant is re-instated, he would be entitled to back benefits. If the appeal is dismissed, he would not be so entitled. The appellant to get Rs. 50 as costs.