1. AWARD The applicant was in permanent service of the respondent as Conductor. On 26th July 1969, his bus was stopped and checked on Tando Muhammad Khan route by the checking party headed by the D. T. M. All the passengers had the tickets. But as alleged, the checking party collected the tickets from the passengers which had been issued to them and prepared a false report against the applicant. He was accordingly charge-sheeted and later dismissed as a result of the enquiry held by an official of the respondent. The applicant contends that not only the report was false but the enquiry was also held in an improper way as neither he was given any opportunity of defence nor any show-cause notice was given before his dismissal from service on 30th September 1969.
2. He has therefore filed this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on 28th November 1970 praying that the respondent be ordered to re-instate him in service with all back benefits from the said date. The respondent contends that the application is belated as well as not maintainable. On facts it is alleged that at the time of checking 11 passengers had been found travelling without tickets although the applicant being a Conductor had received the fare from them. It is also stated that 11 tickets had been punched by the applicant on seeing the checking party and that they were secured from the possession of the applicant. The relevant form was also found incomplete and not closed. Accordingly the applicant was charge-sheeted and after receipt of his reply a proper enquiry was held against him in which he not only cross- examined the witnesses against him but also examined his own witnesses in defence. He also gave his statement and in consequence of the report of the enquiry in which he was found guilty of misconduct, he was given a show-cause notice and then dismissed by the competent authority in accordance with the Rules. Other contentions of the applicant have also been denied and it is prayed that the application be dismissed. The applicant has filed his own affidavit and produced copy of the charge-sheet and statement given by him. In cross-examination he admits that the witnesses were examined in his presence and he had also produced his own witnesses and further that after the enquiry he had appeared before the District Manager. He has also admitted that before this also he was punished five or six times by the same authority. On facts this is sufficient to show that the applicant was checked and 'charge-sheeted. After his reply a proper enquiry as alleged was held with proper opportunity of defence to the applicant and then in the last he was given a show-cause notice with a personal hearing before the District Manager and then dismissed from service. The reply statement and the documents of enquiry placed on record with it support the above conclusion. It is an admitted position that previous to this also the applicant had faced punishments for such misconduct. Initially he too appeared satisfied and neither filed appeal nor pursued any other remedy until the filing of this application. I accordingly find that there was nothing illegal in the proceedings by the respondent against the applicant. He was dismissed after a due enquiry. As such no rights have been violated. It has also been argued that this application having been filed after about 14 months of the dismissal and only after the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it suffers from laches and is liable to be dismissed on that score alone. This has force. However on merits also this application has already failed. I would accordingly dismiss this application and it is hereby dismissed.