1. AWARD This is an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance filed on 26th April 1971 by the applicant praying for re-instatement in service with all the accompanying benefits.
2. The applicant was in the service of the respondents for some years on a monthly salary of Rs. 200.
3. As he was an official of the Washing and Dry Cleaning Workers Union Registered Hyderabed, and as there were certain industrial disputes pending before the Labour Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the respondent orally dismissed him from service with effect from 25th April 1971 without any cause or permission from the Court as required under section 47 of the Ordinance. Since this was illegal owing to the Trade Union activities of the applicant and therefore in contravention of the provisions of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the applicant has filed this application with prayer as aforesaid. The respondent states that the applicant had remained absent from 10th to 13th April 1971 and when he again absented from 25th April 1971, he was given a show-cause notice dated 26th April 1971. in which he was called upon to explain his conduct. The applicant then replied this notice stating that he had filed this application before the Labour Court on 26th April 1971 and that he should not be blamed for absence from duty. The respondents then again served him with a notice dated 6th May 1971 informing him that his absence continued and that he should report for duty without any further delay. But as the applicant did not report for duty his services were terminated with effect from 17th May 1971 with one month's pay in lieu of notice under section 19(1) of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. It is denied if at that time the respondents knew that the applicant was an office bearer of a Union or if any industrial dispute were then pending between the parties before the Labour Court. The applicant has filed his own affidavit in which he has admitted the receipt of notice dated 26th April 1971 and his reply to it dated 28th April 1971. He has also admitted the receipt of notice dated 6th May 1971 but alleged that he had reported for duty in consequence of it but was refused by the respondents. It is however strange to see that in cross-examination he has denied the receipt of these notices and his own reply dated 28th April 1971. He has also produced his own application dated 11th January 1972 addressed to the respondents requesting him to re-instate him in service with pay in accordance with the declaration of the Governor of Sind but added that he is not prepared to join in terms of that order of the Government. It is an admitted position that the respondent had agreed to take the applicant back in service in accordance with this order of the Governor but the applicant has refused to take its advantage probably because he wanted re- instatement as of right. The respondents' evidence is also there in support of his contentions and now it has to be seen as to what are the rights of the applicant and how far they stand violated? It is apparent that the applicant by the notices dated 26th April and 6th May 1971 was asked to show cause against his absence from duty and also called upon to resume his duties. He has not proved as to what office of the Union he holds or what industrial dispute had then been pending between his Union and the respondent-Management. It is also clear that the applicant was dismissed ultimately on 17th May 1971 and not on 25th April 1971 as alleged in this application. It would thus seem that this application had been prematurely filed as by then no rights had been violated. The applicant has remained adament in pursuing his remedy through this Court and now this application is found as pre mature and not maintainable. It is therefore hereby dismissed.