1. AWARD The applicant was appointed as Cleaner in the leave vacancy with effect from 5th April 1972 by the respondents on Rs. J 25 per mensem and worked as such up to the filing of this application on 22nd September 1972. But as the respondent No. 2 had verbally disallowed him from continuing his work on the ground that he was a temporary hand and as such his services had been terminated, he has filed this application on the ground that having worked for more than 3 months he was a permanent hand and therefore had been illegally locked-out although three other persons have thereafter been appointed in fresh vacancies. His prayer is as under:-- "In view of above I pray to this Honourable Court that respondent may be ordered to admit me as permanent Cleaner (Workman) and order to prohibit my illegal lock-out." Preliminary legal objections have been heard. The argument is that there being no application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance pending in Court, this application under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is not maintainable. It has also been pointed that since grievance procedure provided under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance has not been followed, even otherwise this application is not maintainable and the mere mention of section 34 in it is of no consequence. On facts the admitted position is that the applicant had been working in a leave vacancy and that his services stand terminated from loth September 1972. It is clear that the prayer is for treating the applicant as a permanent Cleaner and prohibit his illegal lock out. In effect this is only a prayer for prohibiting the respondent from disallowing the applicant to continue his duties. It means that the application is only one under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and has nothing to do with the reliefs concerned under section 34 of the Industrial Kelations Ordinance. Further, although the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance are mandatory yet the grievance procedure provided in it has not been followed by the applicant. I therefore uphold the objection that without the pendency of an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, an application under section 45 of that Ordinance would not be maintainable. Even otherwise the remedy lay under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which has also not been resorted to. In the result therefore this application is held as not according to law and not maintainable. It is therefore hereby dismissed.