1. AWARD This is an application under sections 25-A and 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance in the following circumstances. The applicant was employed by the respondent-Mill as a Winder since 17th February 1972. The applicant was served with a charge-sheet by the respondent and this was replied by him on 11th October 1972, stating that the allegations were false and fabricated. However, without holding any inquiry or without affording any chance of defence to the applicant, the respondents closed down the Mill gates for him. This was followed by a grievance notice but the respondents after keeping him on hopes refused to take the applicant back in service. He has therefore filed this application praying for re-instatement with full back benefits inclusive of his wages. The respondents admit that the applicant has been working from 17th February, 1972. It is denied if he was dismissed without any charge-sheet or proper enquiry. It is contended that he was twice charge-sheeted and given show-cause notice once for striking work and secondly for his 8 days continuous absence without any intimation or permission. It is then alleged that the applicant has been asked to collect his dues but as he has been attempting to destroy the peace of the Industry having been guilty of the aforesaid charges, the respondents claim inability to re- employ him or take him back. The simple issues involved are whether applicant was dismissed from service illegally; and if yes, whether he is entitled to the relief prayed for by him? Only the applicant has filed the affidavit and the respondents have cross- examined him. In other words, no evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent's side. Admittedly the applicant stands dismissed from service. For this he claims in his evidence that he was only served with a charge- sheet and had even given its reply; but that he was neither given any opportunity of being heard nor any proper enquiry was held before his dismissal; A worker may be guilty of charges but as required under Standing Orders 15 (4 & 5) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, he cannot be dismissed or punished without holding of a proper enquiry in accordance with law. This brings the burden on the respondents to show that they have rightly dismissed the applicant. I find that the fespondents have neither laid any eviflence nor proved any documents showing that a proper enquiry was held or that the applicant was dismissed after giving him the opportunity of defence. In these circumstances, the verdict has to be in favour of the applicant. I find that the applicant's contention that he has been unlawfully dismissed from service is correct and proved. As a result of the above finding, the respondents are ordered to take the applicant back in service with continuity of service and back benefits inclusive of bis wages.