1. AWARD In this application, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant seeks payment of his legal dues from the respondents. The case of the applicant is that he was employed as a driver, and had service of more than 22 years in the respondent Concern.
2. His salary was Rs. 250.00 per month in addition to daily allowance of Rs. 6.00. He had to perform duty from 6-00 a. m. to 6-00 p. m., daily without interval. On many occasions he protested against the duty hours and demanded payment of overtime. This annoyed the respondent, with the result that he was stopped from working in 1he beginning of October 1970, and was verbally told that his services had been terminated. He was also not paid his legal dues. Hence, he had moved this application for payment of earned wages for September 1970, Notice Pay, Gratuity, Bonus, leave encashment, overtime for 6 months preceding the date of termination, and compensation for wrongful termination. The respondents, in their reply statement have denied that the applicant was their employee. They state that the applicant was employed temporarily on a contract on a bus which was running between Hyderabad and Tando Muhammad Khan. The permit was temporary and in the name of some one else. Since the contract was not likely to continue, the respondents had to stop business. The applicant was informed accordingly, and he was paid his wages, not only for the month of August 1970, when the business was closed, but also for the month of September, in full and final settlement of his accounts. The respondents further plead that the application is not maintainable because no industrial dispute exists, and the claim is time-barred.
3. During the proceedings, the applicant filed his affidavit, on 28th February 1972. But, when the matter came up for the cross-examination of the applicant on 9th May 1972, none was present for the respondents nor was any application made by them for adjournment. Consequently, the side of the respondents was closed. Since then the case was adjourned on several dates of hearing, from lst June 1972 to 3rd October 1972, at the request of the Representative for the applicant for filing written arguments. But during this period of more than 4 months, rone ever appeared for the respondents or made any application for permission to participate in the proceedings. Thus, the averments made in the application and the affidavit of the applicant stand unchallenged, and there is no evidence in rebuttal by the respondents. However, even from the reply statement of the respondents, it appears that th^ applicant was an employee of the respondents, though he might have been on contract basis. Consequently, even if his services were terminated on account of closure of business, he was entitled to the dues payable on termination of services. The applicant will, therefore, be entitled to earned wages for the month of September 1970, Notice Pay, Gratuity, and payment of unavailed leave, as provided by Standing Order l2 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. There is, however, no evidence that the bonus or over time was payable to the employees of the respondent concern. There is also no provision under the law for compensation for wrongful termination. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to these dues. Therefore, the application is allowed to the extent that the applicant is entitled to the payment of earned wages for September 1970, notice pay, gratuity and dues for unavailed leave.