1. AWARD This is an application dated 13th September 1972. There is no section of law mentioned but since it is for re-instatement in service and payment of wages and other benefits it is being presently treated as an application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The relevant facts of the application are that the applicant while in the employment of the respondents was wrongly indicted for a minor fault in the performance of his duties, and as a result of charge- sheet and an improper enquiry was dismissed from service and dis-allowed from entering the Mill for work. He preferred application to the Labour Directorate but as he failed to get any redress he has filed this application praying that the respondents be ordered to pay him his pay of five months and other benefits. It may be mentioned that the dates regarding the incident, charge- sheet, enquiry or dismissal are not mentioned in the application. The respondents have contended that the application is neither legally maintainable nor is within time as the grievance procedure provided under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance has not been properly followed.
2. On facts, it is alleged that the acts of negligence and indiscipline are admitted in the application itself; that the applicant had mis-conducted and on a report by the Shift Incharge given a charge- sheet and then dismissed after a full enquiry. It is also contended that the Labour Directorate has also up held the action taken by the respondent On these grounds, it is prayed that the application be dismissed. The applicant has filed his affidavit in which he admits that he had committed some negligence on which the Shift Incharge had abused and tried to assault him. He also admits that he was given a charge-sheet and asked to face an enquiry but adds that no enquiry was held and was informed that he would not be taken back in service as he had been dismissed. As against this the respondents' witness has produced all the enquiry papers supporting the contention of applicant's dismissal after a proper enquiry. It appears clear that the enquiry was held after a proper report and charge-sheet. Indeed the alleged misconduct stands admitted in the application itself. Thus on facts I find that there is nothing for the applicant to feel aggrieved of. It has to be noted that the applicant had made an application before Labour Directorate in which the respondents were also heard. The objection that the grievence procedure was not strictly followed therefore cannot be allowed to be held good. However, the applicant having been dismissed by order dated 18th May 1972 (Exh. R. 9), and after dismissal of his claim for re-instatement in service by the Directorate of Labour under letter dated 31st May 1972 (Exh. R. 10) cannot justify this application dated 30th September 1972 as within time. It has therefore to be found as time- barred also. It has to be observed that in the order of dismissal (Exh. R. 9) the respondents admit their liability to pay the applicant his earned wages, which means that on this date they owned it to the applicant. It is therefore expected that this shall be paid to the applicant by them. With this observation the application for above-stated reasons is found as not maintainable both on points of facts and law and it is hereby dismissed.