1. AWARD This is an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance filed by the applicant praying for setting aside his dismissal order and re-instatement in service with pay and other benefits. The applicant claims to be in permanent service of the respondent as a Conductor of bus. He contends that on 31st January 1969 his bus was checked. But in spite of the fact that he was not responsible for any misconduct, the checking party made a false report against him. As a result of this he was wrongly charge-sheeted and as a result of an illegal enquiry conducted by the respondent, dismissed from service without affording him any opportunity of defence. He has therefore filed this application as aforesaid. The respondent has alleged that this application is belated and is not maintainable in law as another application bearing No. 67-70 filed by the applicant under the same section already stands dismissed. On facts it is denied if the applicant was a permanent Conductor. It is stated that he was working as a "Badli" Conductor and his name was ordered to be removed from the waiting list of conductors as a result of the enquiry in which he was found guilty of negligence and misconduct for carrying nine passengers without tickets.
2. The applicant has filed his own affidavit and has been cross-examined. He has failed to produce any evidence to prove himself as a permanent Conductor. On the contrary, he admits that he had been working as a conductor in that bus for seven months only. This means that he was a badli Conductor as alleged in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. The applicant has also not been able to prove the alleged dismissal order while the respondent's witness has filed the copy of order showing that the applicant's name in consequence of the enquiry, has been ordered to be removed from the waiting list of conductors with effect from 11th August 1969. The enquiry papers have also been placed on record and referred in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. All this clearly shows that the applicant was not a permanent worker as a Conductor on the bus in question and that although' not necessary in view of section l2 (2) of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders)'. Ordinance, 1968, yet was subject to a due enquiry and a show-cause notice etc.) before the final order under which his name was ordered to be removed from! the waiting list of conductors. I accordingly find that the contentions of the applicant that he was a permanent worker and was dismissed as a result of an illegal enquiry are not proved and instead the contentions of the respondent in that behalf are found as proved. There is nothing illegal in the respondent's action and no rights of the applicant appear to have been violated. As regards the contention that the applicant was concerned with any Industrial Dispute at the relevant time, and the contention of the respondent that previously such an application filed by the applicant already stands dismissed, are also not proved and as such no discussion is called for. As regards the legal objection regarding the delay in the application it also does not require any finding as this application has failed on merits. As a result of what has been stated above the application is deemed to fail and it is hereby dismissed.