1971 PLP 234 (PLC)

Application No. 49 of 1970, decided on 25th November 1970. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 47(2) - Punishment during pendency of Industrial dispute-O "Ice-bearer offered Trade Union charged of misconduct--Findings of domestic enquiry held fairly proving allegations of misconduct, Accused to appear before Court despite issue of summons-Management, to circumstances, granted permission to take disciplinary action entailing even dismissal of justified by relevant rules. Azmatullah Khan for Applicant. AGHA IMDADALLY (CHAIRMAN). This application under section 47 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed by District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad and the respondent is Mehmood Ali, who is a Conductor employed under the applicant District Manager in the Service under his control.

2. The facts shown in the application are that the res pondent is said to be an office-bearer of the G. T. S. Employees' Association (Regd.), Hyderabad and certain Industrial Disputes are pending for adjudication and determination in this Court. On 10th November 1969 which the respondent was on duty as Conductor in G. T. S. B-Is No. 9075 on Hyderabad-Matli route his bus was checked at New Railway Bridge, Hyder abad by Mr. Muhammad Khan, Traffic Assistant who was accompanied by Mr. Rasheed Ahmed, Traffic Supervisor. On such surprise checking 13 passengers were found travelling without tickets of whom, it is alleged, the respondent had already realised fare from 11 and that he had issued only 5 tickets to these ticket less passengers that too after seeing the Checking-Party- The respondent was subsequently charge-sheeted on such report of his conduct by dishonesty and was asked to submit his explanation which he did but it was found unsatisfactory. A domestic enquiry was then, as ordered by the applicant, held against the respondent who was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer after the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings gave a report adverse to the respondent finding him guilty of the misconduct, on the facts shown above, as this term is defined in section 7 (2) (b) of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. Thereafter the respondent was served a show-cause notice and he was also heard in person by the applicant, According to tile applicant, as is mentioned in the application the charges of misconduct aforesaid are proved against the respondent and the applicant intends to dismiss the latter from service hence he seeks permission to do so by the present application.

3. When the application was filed summonses were issued to the respondent by registered post A/D and the acknow ledgment postal receipt has been received by this Court which clearly shows that the respondent has been duly served but on the date of hearing fixed for the application he did not put in any appearance hence he was placed ex parse and the applicant was allowed to furnish evidence in support of ex parte proof of his case. Consequently an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Azmatullah Khan who is Station Superintendent (Legal Representative) in Government Transport Service, Hyderabad and he has sworn this affidavit on oath giving the same facts constituting the misconduct alleged against the respondent as are detailed already above. Since there is no evidence in rebuttal, this affidavit has to be accepted as correct and it duly proves the facts on which the present application rests. Thus it is amply clear on record that the respondent has been found guilty of misconduct by the applicant District Manager who seeks permission to dismiss him from service by this application. This request obviously under the circumstances set out above is reason able and genuine as such it is granted and permission is hereby accorded to the applicant District Manager to proceed t take disciplinary action against the respondent entailing even hi dismissal if so justified by the relevant law, on the subject. Announced in open Court.