1. AWARD The applicant was appointed in the service of the respondent on 18th March 1972 and thereafter was dismissed on 18th June 1972 without any charge-sheet or notice. This termination of his services is alleged to be illegal on the ground that being in the service of the respondent for over three months he is to be deemed to be in the permanent employment. He has therefore filed this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance praying for re-instatement with all back benefits of salary etc. The respondent states that the applicant had joined service temporarily on 18th March 1972 and then himself resigned on 13th June 1972 and which resignation was accepted. It is also stated that the applicant was offered to collect his dues and as he failed to collect them, its amount was sent by money order but the same was also received back as refused. It is therefore alleged that there is no violation of any law and that this application is liable to be dismissed. The applicant has filed his own affidavit. In cross-examination he has denied his own application which he had given for employment. The Exhs. A, B and C are the papers regarding his appointment but he denies if they are thumb-marked by him. He has also denied his resignation dated 13th June 1972 and his thumb-mark on it, stating that he signs his name and has not been thumb-marking in lieu of his signatures. However at last he has admitted that he was thumb-marking the pay rolls and not signing them He also admits that in the month of September 1972 he had accepted the conciliation before the Labour Directorate according to which he was directed to collect his dues and that he had himself taken that letter Exh. E to the respondent. These admissions clearly point out that the applicant has a motive to falsely deny his thumb marks on his application and the resignation. This supports the contentions of the respondent that the applicant had resigned on 13th June 1972 and left for the reason that his father was ill. This is fully supported by the affidavits of Muhammad Idris, Raja Lorasab Khan and Mian Khan who have been produced on behalf of the respondent. Thus according to my conclusion it is proved that the applicant had voluntarily resigned on 13th June 1972 and left the job. This resignation was accepted and now the applicant can only claim his dues which were even* tried to be sent to him by money order. This application therefore is liable to be! dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The applicant is of course free to collect his dues from the respondent.