1. AWARD In this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance the applicant has prayed for his re-instatement in service from the date of dismissal with all back benefits. It is alleged that on lst October 1969, the applicant's bus in which he was a conductor, was checked by Traffic Assistant Mr. Gul Muhammad and that in spite of the fact that no fault was detected, a wrong report was made and he was subjected to a wrong charge-sheet and in spite of a proper explanation to it, and as a result of an improper and biased enquiry in which he was not given full opportunity of defence, he was dismissed from service with effect from lst January 1970. He has therefore filed this application as aforesaid. The respondent denies if the charge was improper and false; or that the applicant was dismissed as a result of a wrong and biased enquiry. It is alleged that he was charge-sheeted as he had refused to hand-over the ticket blocks to Mr. Gul Muhammad at the time of checking. It is further alleged that the enquiry was impartial and proper and the services were terminated as the applicant was found guilty of the charges. It is denied if the applicant is a party concerned with industrial disputes pending before Court. The applicant has filed his own affidavit and produced the copy of charge-sheet and his reply to it. The charge-sheet contains the following two charges: -- "(1) That at the time of checking when Mr. Gul Muhammad Baloch demanded ticket blocks, you refused to give them; (2) That you misbehaved with the checker." The applicant has alleged that this was a false charge-sheet. He had handed over the ticket blocks and that there was no mis behaviour or misconduct and that no fault was detected in the checking. As regards the contentions of the respondent, no evidence has been produced to prove them. Application previously made and alleged to be dismissed is not proved. The copy of order is not filed and it is not proved whether the application was withdrawn with or without permission to file a fresh one or whether it was decided on merits. The applicant has alleged in his evidence that he was concerned with pending Industrial Disputes Nos. 24 and 33, both of 1968 and that service terms have been changed by the action against him. It is also contended by him that he had withdrawn the previous application and filed this application as it was necessitated by the amendments in the labour laws. The respondent has not filed any affidavit to controvert these contentions. Not even some of the documents placed on the file with reply statement regarding enquiry proceedings are supported through evidence The contention of the applicant's side that he was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report is also not controverted by evidence. Even otherwise, as prayed on behalf of the respondent, if I were to peruse the enquiry papers and the report I find that the applicant had been fully supported on his defence by the driver of the bus. The show-cause notice and order of dismissal are also not there. The conclusion of the Enquiry Officer are as under:-- "Conductor is a very cunning fellow and is also involved in another case His statement is self-styled story and the witness produced by him is a G. T. S. driver and is one of the party who cannot be relied upon." This clearly is a view which is based on personal knowledge of the Enquiry Officer regarding the activities of the applicant and his witness and for this reason the applicant's allegation in evidence that the Enquiry Officer's attitude was biased against him will have to be upheld. Again, the contention regarding pendency of the industrial disputes Nos. 24/68 and 33/68 is also not denied by evidence. The admissions in cross- examination of the applicant regarding the enquiry are not sufficient to prove that a full and impartial enquiry was held, and further that his service conditions had not been changed during the pendency of the industrial disputes, as has been alleged and proved by him. I accordingly find that it is not proved that the respondent had dismissed the applicant on a proper charge or as a result of a proper enquiry. On facts therefore the applicants contentions are upheld. As regards the legal objections it is observed that the point of delay cannot be fatal as a previous application had been filed and withdrawn owing to certain amendments in the labour laws. The other point regarding mantainability of this second application is also of no consequence for the same reason as the respondents have failed to prove that the earlier application was dismissed on merits and had not been withdrawn as alleged by the applicant. As a result of what is stated above I allow this application and direct that the applicant shall be re-instated in service from the date of his dismissal with all back benefits of a continuous service.