1988 PLP 1009 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 4th February, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Corporation against an impugned order, dated 31‑8‑1986, passed by the Surd Labour Court No. 1, at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to have been permanently working as a Conductor in the appellant Corporation having been posted at Oranginale Depot, Karachi, at the relevant time. He claimed that while he was on duty his bus was checked by the checking party and at that time, neither his case was checked, nor the statement of any alleged ticketless passenger was recorded and nor a copy of the T.T.40 was supplied to him, but, he was issued a charge‑sheet and as the reply to the same was found not satisfactory, and proper domestic enquiry was conducted followed by an illegal dismissal of his service. He, therefore, served a grievance notice and subsequently filed grievance petition.

3. The appellant Corporation resisted the petition on the ground that the checking party, after having checked the bus had filled T.T.40 on the spot a copy whereof was also supplied to the respondent on which the statement of the respondent was also recorded. It was also the case of the appellant Corporation that a proper domestic enquiry was conducted against the respondent in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and that the respondent was carrying 12 passengers from New Town to Hassan Square without issuing tickets, but, realizing a total amount of fare from them as Rs.12 which was pocketed by him. They claimed that as the respondent was correctly dismissed from service, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his petition, which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation and Mr. Yousuf Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the bus, in question, was checked by one Yousuf Farooqi, Inspector, alongwith other members of the checking party but no alleged ticketless passenger was confronted nor any one of them was subsequently examined either before the said enquiry officer or before the learned Labour Court. The evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant Corporation is not direct but simply here say as none of them had deposed that the respondent had realized the fare from the passengers before them. A constant view of this Tribunal is that the checking party is duty bound to record the statement of the alleged ticketless passenger and also to produce him before either the enquiry officer or before the learned Labour Court in support of the charge against the conductor, but, here this is not the case. There is no independent witness against the conductor, excepting the here say evidence of the prosecution witness. In view of this admitted position and the authorities of this Tribunal I would hold that the dismissal of the services of the respondent could not be sustained, hence, it is hereby set aside. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order, which is well‑reasoned and to be maintained. For the reasons discussed brine above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is directed to .be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. A.E./1255/Lb.S. Appeal dismissed.