1. AWARD This is an application brought by Abad Ali Khan against M/s. M. A. Transport praying for re- instatement in service and wages. In nutshell the facts of the matter are that the applicant was employed as a driver with Messrs M. A. Transport, Karachi since lst December 1970. On lst July 1972 applicant went for duty but he was not allowed to perform his duties and his services were orally terminated. Nothing was offered for payment. Hence this application. The respondents have contested the matter and filed written statement. The respondents say that applicant did not turn up for duty after 28th June 1972 on which date he completely damaged engine of the bus. The respondents were ready to re-employ the applicant provided he was ready to furnish guarantee.
2. Applicant has filed his affidavit. Against this there is sworn affidavit of Syed Mashood Ali respondent. No other evidence has been led by parties. It has been argued by learned Representative of the applicant that according to section 7 of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 the / respondents could not terminate the services of applicant without previous one month's notice or charge-sheeting him. It is admitted position that no notice or charge-sheet was given to the applicant. The mode and conditions of terminating services of a worker are laid down in Ordinance XXVIH of 1961 (Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961). It is not necessary to charge- sheet orl give notice to worker before teminating his services. I reproduce subsections (1)M and (2) of section 7 of the Ordinance as under:-- I "(1) The services of a worker shall not be terminated without sufficient cause nor unless and until one month's previous notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof has been given to him and he has been paid his pay for any period of leave admissible to him, of which he did not avail himself while in service. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to the case of a worker whose services are terminated on account of his having been found guilty of misconduct." Thus the services of the worker viz. applicant could be terminated on payment of one month's pay without giving him one month's notice or sufficient cause for misconduct. The defence is that applicant damaged the engine on 28th June 1972 and disappeared. Further defence is that applicant remained absent without leave from 20th April 1972 to 10th May 1972 and thereby deserted his duties. Applicant in his cross-examination admits that he had taken leave for 10-12 days. He does not remember if he had taken leave from 20th April 1972 to 10th May 1972. He further admits that he had not remained absent for 20 days but he took leave during that period. Thus he himself is not sure if he was on duty for entire period in between 20th April 1972 to 10th May 1972.
3. This suggest that he remained absent without leave for more than 10 days. Absence without leave for more than 10 days comes within the purview of 'misconduct'. Next the respondent swears in his affidavit that the applicant had wilfully damaged the engine on 28th June 1972. The learned Representa tive for applicant did not put questions to respondent Syed Mashood Ali in his cross- examination as to the point of damage caused by the applicant. I find no reason to disbelive Syed Mashood Ali. During the course of arguments, Advocate for respondent concedes that respondent is willing to pay one month's pay to applicant as provided by section 7, clause (i) of the aforesaid Ordinance. The applicant admits to have received his all dues till May 1972. The respondent Syed Mashood Ali is present and he concedes that pay for the month of June 1972 has not been paid to the applicant. I therefore order that applicant is entitled to claim two months* pay from the respondents. Two months* pay be paid to him at once. Award accordingly.