1. AWARD The applicant has filed this application on 23rd November 1970 under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance praying that he be ordered to be re-instated in service from the date of his illegal lock-out i.e. 5th March 1970 with full pay and other benefits. The applicant contends that he was appointed as a Weaver in the respondent's-Mill from lst February 1969 and continued as such up to 4th March 1970 serving in one or the other sections of Mill. But from 5th March 1970, he was not allowed to work. He then fell ill from 12th March 1970 and remained under treatment of the Medical Officer of the respondent. Then on 13th April 1970 he returned and reported for duty. But he was not taken on work in spite of the medical certificates produced by him. Since this illegal action of the respondents violated the rights of the applicant guaranteed under the law he has filed this application praying for re-instatement and other benefits as aforesaid. The respondent has alleged that the application is belated as well as not maintainable in law. On facts it is admitted that the applicant had been working up to 4th March 1970. But it is denied if he was not allowed to work from 5th March 1970. It is contended that the applicant was on leave up to 12th March and as such had failed to resume work. Thereafter he was dismissed from service after a due enquiry. It is alleged that as the applicant had left the quarter of the Mill also, he could not be served with the notices of enquiry and that as such the enquiry was held in his absence. In the evidence, there is affidavit of the applicant supported by those of Allaudin Sardar and Shamsul Haque. The medical certificates dated 13th and 15th April 1970 regarding illness and fitness of the applicant issued by the Medical Officer of Mill have also been filed and they are not disputed in the respondent's evidence. If these certificates were not genuine then the respondents could have easily proved it by examining the Medical Officer of the Mill or by the production of the record itself. The so-called enquiry held during the absence of the applicant was therefore of no consequence as the respondents have failed to examine the person who had been sent to serve the notices on the applicant. The evidence of the applicant's witnesses contradicts the contention that the applicant could not be served as he was found absent from the quarter.