1984 PLP 1256 (PLC(CS))

S. Sajjad Hussain for Appellant. Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 10th March, 1984. The above‑captioned appeal has been preferred against the decision, dated 10th March, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad directing the reinstatement of the respon dent in service without back benefits. The respondent has by way of cross objections claimed back benefits. The cross‑objections are being disposed of alongwith the appeal. 2. The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service after charge‑sheeting and holding an enquiry against him were that 21 passengers were found Ticketless during checking out of whom five were such that fare bad been recovered from them by the respondent and from the remaining 16 no fare bad been realised. The plea of the respon dent was that he had not realised fare from any of the 21 Ticketless passengers and that as they had boarded the bus from the place where the checking party had got into the bus, he had no chance to issue tickets. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that by the statements of the passengers it stood proved that the respondent had realised fare from five passengers, so failure on his part to issue tickets constituted misconduct. Regarding the remaining 16 passengers it has been argued that failure on the part of the respondent to recover fare and issue tickets to large number of passengers caused loss to the appellant, so this also amounts to misconduct. So far as 16 passengers are concerned only this much can be said that the respondent was guilty of negligence and inefficiency, which does not amount to misconduct. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that in TT‑40 and charge‑sheet it is not mentioned that the passengers' state ments were recorded and that the respondent refused to sign them, so the said statements are forged documents. The necessary result of not men tioning the passengers' statements in the above‑mentioned two documents is not that the record of statements of the passengers is forged one. In the absence of evidence of enmity between the respondent and the checkers it cannot be said that the case has been concocted against the respondent. 5. It has also been argued that no permission under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was obtained to dismiss the respon dent, so the dismissal order was rightly set aside. No doubt, an industrial dispute was pending earlier but before the date of dismissal it had ceased to exist, so taking of permission under section 47.of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not necessary. 6. Since no misconduct was committed by not issuing tickets to 16 passengers and yet the enquiry officer found the respondent guilty of the said charge, Chan Pir Shah's case (N L R 1978 Lab. 7) applies to the case. The employer was prejudiced against the employee knowing that both the allegations amounted to misconduct. The possibility cannot be excluded that if the ‑respondent had been found guilty of misconduct only in respect of 'S1A passengers only, the employer may have prescribed some other kind of punishment short of dismissal. So the punishment of dismissal was rightly) set aside by the learned lower Court. 7. The claim of the respondent to back benefits is not justified. He has succeeded on a technical point, so is not entitled to back benefits. 8. As a result, the appeal and cross‑objections are dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.