1. The petitioner Abdul Razzaq the son of Jamandar Khurshid Ali, has instituted this complaint under section 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
2. Ordinance, 1968. In his complaint he has stated that he has been serving as clerk in the Lahore Omnibus Service, Lahore, with effect from 24-11-1961 and that he is Joint Secretary of the Road Transport Employees' Union (Regd.), Lahore. According to the petitioner the Road Transport Services Rules, 1959, are applicable to him and Chapter XI, Appendix VII, also applied to him and these rules constitute a part of the terms and conditions of the petitioner's service under section 9 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
3. On the date 28-7-1969 the District Manager Lahore Omnibus Service, Lahore, communicated a charge-sheet to the petitioner bearing No. LOS/EST-3/69/3011, but. before doing so he did not afford the petitioner all the facilities to which he was entitled under Chapter X1, Appendix VII, of the Road Transport - Board ,Services Rules, 19.59: The petitioner has alleged that this action on the part of the District Manager was motivated by personal m dice and resentment against his Trade Union activities and, consequently, the charge-sheet in question was illegal and unjust. On the date 25- 6-1969 the petitioner had addressed a complaint to the Chairman of the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, through the District Manager of the Lahore Omnibus Service, Lahore, against the attitude of the Deputy Traffic Manager L.O.S., Lahore, Sheikh Abdul Samad, in which complaint the petitioner had stated that during the illness of the petitioner the said Deputy Traffic Manager had abused, beaten and insulted- the petitioner. This complaint of the petitioner was not forwarded to the Chairman by the District Manager, who was biased in favour of Sheikh Abdul Samad and who supported the Deputy Traffic Manager --by giving the petitioner a charge-sheet.
4. The petitioner has further remarked that Industrial Disputes Nos. 14/1967, 37/1967, and 11/1968 were pending in this Court at the time when the above-mentioned charge-sheet was delivered to the petitioner by the District Manager under the authority of the respondent and the petitioner is directly interested in and connected with the demands constituting the subject-matter of those disputes. In view of all the above-stated facts the petitioner has requested that since he has been deprived by the respondent of the facilities to which he was entitled under the Road Transport Board Services Rules, 1959, therefore this Court might order the respondent to provide the petitioner with all the benefits to which he is entitled under the Road Transport Board Services Rules, 1959, and to pay the petitioner the costs incurred by him.
5. A reply was filed in this Court on behalf of the respondent in response to the petitioner's complaint.
6. 1n this reply it was asserted that since Abdul Razzaq, who was a junior clerk of the Lahore Omnibus Service, was not a workman therefore the Road Transport Board Service Rules, 1959, did not apply to him and he was not entitled to any benefits under those Rules. It was also remarked that the respondent had not committed any violation of the provisions of either the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or of section 37 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, hence the complaint/application of the petitioner was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the detailed arguments advanced by the petitioner's Representative in support of the petitioner's application and also the counter-arguments of the respondent's Representative and haze examined the relevant record minutely in the light of the provisions of the law. Section 9 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, bears he marginal heading "protection to existing conditions of employment" and it is worded as follows :- "Nothing in this Ordinance shall affect any law, custom, usage, award or agreement in force immediately before the promulgation of this Ordinance in so far as such law, custom, usage, award or agreement ensure conditions of employment more favourable to workmen than those provided in the Standing Orders."
8. It is abundantly clear from even a cursory glance at the above-cited provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance,. 1968 that they have-not conferred any benefits on any workman. The exact purpose of those provisions of the law is too obvious to require any explanation in the present context. On the other hand the petitioner himself has failed to mention in the complaint under consideration the exact nature of the benefits to which he considers himself entitled and of which, on his showing, he has been deprived by the respondent. Allegations of malice and bias levelled by him against certain officers of' the Lahore Omnibus Service, Lahore, do not in any way affect the manifest fact that the petitioner's complaint under consideration does not disclose the exact nature of his grievance against the respondent. It is true that In paragraph 5 of his complaint the petitioner has in highly ambiguous terms asserted that his terms and conditions of employment has been altered to his prejudice without the prior permission of this Industrial Court, nevertheless neither those terms and conditions of his employment nor the precise nature of their alleged violation by the respondent has been explained in the complaint under consideration. The petitioner has also failed to indicate the exact provisions of the law under which it was essential for the respondent to obtain the prior permission of this Court for even communicating any charge- sheet to the petitioner, which is all that the respondent seems to have done so far in regard to the petitioner.
9. In any case section 9 of the West Pakistan Industrial in Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
10. Ordinance, 1968, has no relevance to the petitioner's complaint against the 8 respondent and the petitioner has obviously failed to make out any case against the respondent under Standing Order
18. Consequently, the petitioner's complaint is dismissed.