1. AWARD MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN MUNIR (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application filed under section 38 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, by ex-Conductor Abdul Rauf of the Islamabad Omnibus Service, Rawalpindi, on the ground, that he was given charge-sheet on 17-1-1968, which was totally baseless; a fair and impartial enquiry was not held against him and he was not given show---- cause notice by the District Manager, when he was dismissed on 22-2-1968.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are, that the petitioner was ors duty with Bus No. 7004 on 31-12-1967, when at about 14-4(1 hours, it was checked by a Checking Party headed by Ch. Niaz Ahmad, Assistant Traffic Manager (Anti-Corruption) at the crossing of Colra and Kashmir Roads, known as the Highway Crossing in Rawalpindi. The allegations against the petitioner are, that on- arrival at the spot, the Checking Party demanded in--hand ticket books and TI-6 from him. He declined to part with them. He was rude to the members of the Checking Party lie said that he was fed up with his life. The members of the raiding party detected two ticket less passengers, who claimed to have paid Re. 0.75 to the petitioner. As the petitioner non-co-operated, the passengers of the bus were directed to alight. Shortly thereafter another bus arrived there. The passengers were made to board it and the Conductor of the latter bus was made to issue two un punched tickets to the ticket less passengers. The former bus was taken to the depot known as Chur Horpal. Charge-sheet Exh.
3. R. 3 was given to the petitioner and his reply-- to the same is Exh. R.
4. He denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter an enquiry was held against him by Malik Najam Hussain A. T. H. R.
4. W. 1.
5. As the occurrence took place on 31-12-1967 and the petitioner was dismissed on 22-1-1968, the provisions of sections 37 and 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, which came into force on the 8th of March 1968, would not be attracted. The petitioner's case would be governed by the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of the former Ordinance i.e. the Ordinance of the year 1959. .
6. In order to bring his case within the ambit of v-the provisions of section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, the petitioner has alleged the pendency of several disputes, with which he claims to be concerned Section 31 is applicable only in those cases, where an employer contravene the provisions of section 30 of the Ordinance, during the pendency of proceedings before a Court.
7. Section 30 of the Ordinance inter alia provides that no employer shall, save with the permission of the Court, discharge, dismiss or otherwise punish any workman during the pendency of conciliation proceedings or proceedings before the Court, "except for misconduct not connected with such dispute".
8. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is wilful disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of his superior officer, unruly conduct and commission of fraud in connection with the employers--- property. It is not denied that Ch. Niaz Ahmad. A. T. M. (Anti-Corruption) of the Islamabad Omnibus Service, was an officer superior to the petitioner and he could check his work and direct him to part with the in hand ticket books and TL-6. By no stretch of imagination can it be urged, that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner viz. wilful insubor--dination or disobedience and commission of fraud has any connection whatsoever, with any pending disputes. Admittedly some disputes between the workmen and the Management were pending at the time of the occurrence, however, evidence is wanting, as to how the alleged misconduct of the petitioner is any way connected with those disputes. On this ground alone, 8 in my opinion the application deserves to be dismissed because the petitioner is not the office-bearer of any Trade Union and cannot invoke the protection of subsection (2) of section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. There are a number of decided cases in support of the aforesaid proposition, I may however, quote only a few of them. In the case of Said Muhammad Janglan v. Mls. Karachi Steam Roller Flour Mills Limited, Karachi (1964 PLC 1) Mr. Rahim Bux P. Munshi, Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi observed, that an application under section 31 lies only when- a breach of the provisions of section. 30 of the 'Ordinance has been committed. After quoting section 30 to extenso he held :-- "The ground on which the services of the applicant have been terminated, has not been proved to have any connection with the dispute pending in this Court. Nor is it the case of Mr. Brohi that it has such a connection. Subsection (2) of section 30 will also not apply because the applicant is not an office-bearer of any Union. Thus no provision of section 30 has been contravened and this being the case, the provisi6ns of section, 31, are not attracted."
9. The application was disallowed.
10. In the case of Ghulam Jan v. Senior Mining Engineer, W.P.1.D. C. Collerles, Makerwal (1964 PLC 96(1))
11. Mr. M. Khuishld Zaman, Chairman of the Industrial Court, West Pakistan observed:-- "The applicant. is not an officer of any Trade Union and he has been dismissed from service for misconduct not connected with the dispute. In the circumstances, the bar of section 30 does not apply to him. This application is, therefore, dismissed."
12. Allegations against the applicant in the aforesaid case, were, that when-the Mine Sardar remonstrated with him for pushing a tub without taking proper precautions and thus allowing it to leave the track and crash against the gate, he gave a slap to him: The applicant had claimed that his services had been terminated during the pendency of an industrial dispute between workmen and the Management and that the charge against him was baseless and was supported by false evidence. However, in view of the fact that the alleged misconduct had no connection with the dispute, his application was dismissed.
13. Similar view was taken by Mr. M. Khurshid Zaman in the case of Taj Din and another v. M/s.West Punjab Textile Mill Limited, Lahore (1954 PLC 280).
14. Thus following the aforesaid decisions with respect, I hold that inasmuch as the petitioner is not an officer of any Trade Union and has failed to prove that his alleged misconduct is connected with any pending disputes, the instant application is incompetent and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.