1984 PLP 1041 (PLC(CS))

‑‑Domestic enquiry ‑ Bus conductor's case ‑ Lady passengers found without tickets and fare allegedly realised ‑ Contention of conductor at time of checking that tickets lost by children of ladies‑Statement of such ticket less passengers neither recorded and signed from accused at time of checking nor during enquiry‑Re‑in statement with back benefits awarded by Labour Court, in circum stances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3). Asghar Mahmood for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing :17th October, 1982. This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 1st September, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits. The facts are that the bus conducted by the respondent was checked on 2nd May, 1980 and seven lady passengers were found without tickets from whom the respondent is alleged to have recovered fare amounting to Rs. 5.25. The stand taken by the respondent from the beginning was that he had issued tickets but the children of the lady passengers had lost them. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that T. T.‑40 D‑27 boars the signatures of the respondent and in this document it is mentioned that by the respondent a fraud of Rs. 5, 25 had been committed. The Checking Party had written on D‑27 about the commission of fraud and not by the respondent. The latter had on T. T. 40 written that tickets had been lost by the children of the lady passengers concerned. Fare had not been recovered from the passengers in the presence of the Checking Party, therefore, one of the members of the said party who had been examined in inquiry had no first hand knowledge of the fact whether tickets had not been issued to the without passengers. If any one of the lady passengers had been examined before the Inquiry Officer or statement of the said passengers had been recorded and got signed by respondent it could be said that the allegation that tickets had not been issued had been established. What the Checker stated before the Inquiry Officer was only hearsay. Learned counsel for the appellant says that the appellant does not want to put the passengers to trouble by calling them in the inquiry. This argument is not tenable. It is the duty of every citizen to give evidence against a culprit and to get him adequately punished. Even if it is not considered proper to produce the passengers in the inquiry why the statement made by passengers is not recorded and got signed by them and the defaulter conductor. There is no reasonable answer to it. The presumption, therefore, is that the facts are otherwise therefore, one of the passengers was either examined during the inquiry nor the state ment made by them before the Checking Party was recorded. The lower Court, therefore, rightly re‑instated the respondent although on different grounds. ' As upshot of the discussion made above do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it. A.E Appeal dismissed