1995 PLP 380 (PLC)

Muhammad Farooq Zaman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 1987. As the two appeals captioned above emerge from the same impugned decision dated 22‑6‑1987 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, both of them are being disposed of together through this single judgment, in which P.RT.C. is being described as the appellant and Muhammad Ashraf as the respondent.

2. The allegation, for which the respondent was dismissed from service, was that 14 lady passengers boarded the bus from Ichhra More and were found ticketless at G.P.O. Stop where the bus was checked and it was found that the respondent had not issued tickets to them. The learned lower Court directed the reinstatement of the respondent but has not allowed back benefits, therefore, the respondent has challenged the decision of the learned lower Court to the extent of claiming back benefits.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned lower Court has wrongly observed that the 14 without ticket lady passengers had boarded the bus from Janazgah and that in reality, as mentioned in the charge‑sheet and from TT‑40, they had got into the bus at Ichhra More. It has been argued that since the distance between Ichhra More and the place of checking was sufficient, the respondent had failed to recover the fare and issue tickets, with dishonest intention. The argument has no force. Since the fare had not been realized by the respondent, it cannot be said that this is a case of misappropriation. The buses running inside the cities invite great rush and the bus stops being situated at short distances, it is not possible for one conductor to issue tickets to all the passengers. The order of reinstatement, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

4. So far as back benefits are concerned, the respondent said that right from the date of dismissal he had remained jobless. The learned lower Court has not given any reason for not allowing back benefits to the respondent. Where the very allegation does not amount to misconduct, the worker is entitled to back benefits if the order of dismissal is set aside. Now it is to be seen whether the respondent is entitled to full back benefits or less than that. In the buses running within the cities there is a separate compartment for the ladies which is much smaller than the accommodation meant for male passengers. It is, therefore, easy for the conductor to issue tickets to the lady passengers. The respondent thus neglected to issue tickets to 14 lady passengers. If he had been vigilant and more careful, sufficient number of lady passengers would not have remained without tickets. In these circumstances the respondent is not entitled to full back benefits.

5. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and partly accepting the appeal of the respondent, he is allowed fifty per cent. back benefits. A.E./449/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.